***************************************************************** 04/24/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.96 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 IPS-English NUKE PROGRAMME-IRAN: Situation about to enter irreversib 2 [NYTr] US Breaks Its Word, Keeps N Korea on Terror List 3 People's Daily: China says six parties still cooperate on Korean nuc 4 UPI: Analysis: N. Korea's Macao funds 5 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Future of North Korea Is Weighed 6 AFP: NKorea has still not taken blocked funds - China - 7 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Aims to Reassure Russia on Defense Sites - 8 US: MHNN: Hinchey proposes his own energy bill 9 UPI: Russia, U.S., in missile shield talks 10 AFP: US tries to reassure Russia over missile shield - 11 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense 12 Guardian Unlimited: Moscow cool to US missile reassurance 13 Guardian Unlimited: Panel Says Case Not Made for New Warhead NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 Taipei Times: Editorial: To build or not to build? 15 WNA: Japan orders stricter checks at reactors 16 The Hindu: Major obstacles persist in nuclear deal 17 The Hindu: India feels U.S. backsliding on prior commitments 18 WNN: Boiling water reactors proposed for the UK 19 YONHAP NEWS: Doosan Heavy to build nuclear power plant facilities in 20 US: JN: NRC to fine Indian Point $130,000 for failing to deliver new 21 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Shumlin eyes new VY tax 22 Xinhua: China's nuclear industry seeks self-reliance 23 The Herald: Powering the future: a nuclear option for Scotland? 24 People's Daily: China's nuclear plants generate 54.8 billion kwh 25 Financial Express: Brazil, India eye N-energy ties 26 US: Reuters: NRC proposes $130,000 fine on Entergy NY Indian Pt 27 Reuters: Doosan, Westinghouse sign nuclear facility letter 28 US: UPI: NRC levies $130K fine on Indian Point 29 US: UPI: U.S. designates reactor as user facility 30 US: 31 US: MHNN: NRC may fine Entergy for Indian Point siren delay 32 Japan Times: Japan, U.S. ink pact on nuclear power reactors | 33 AU ABC: Scientist questions nuclear future. 34 US: Mother Earth News: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER 35 english.eastday.com: Third generation of high-tech nuke power on way 36 SMN: Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Russian Nuke Reactor Gets European Certifi 37 Guardian Unlimited: Concern Over India-U.S. Nuke Deal 38 US: Guardian Unlimited: Reactor Makers Asked to Ponder Plane Hit NUCLEAR SECURITY 39 Xinhua: Suspects smuggling nuclear material seized 40 ITAR-TASS: 2 Belarussians seized on suspicion of radioactive contrab NUCLEAR SAFETY 41 US: FR DHHS: Test site exposure cohort 42 News & Star: Volunteers exposed to radiation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 43 US: Platts: Former US DOE official attacks GNEP on nuclear waste ris 44 US: Popular Science: Nuking Nuclear Waste - 45 US: The Australian: Premier backs Rudd on uranium mines 46 Japan Times: Toyo voters were confused - Amari PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 47 Tri-City Herald: DOE starts over for river protection job 48 Tri-City Herald: Settling lawsuit right move for DOE 49 Hanford News: Panel: Case yet to be made for new nuclear warhead 50 Hanford News: PNNL boosts safety system with cameras 51 Hanford News: Former military sites remain environmental time bombs 52 Hanford News: DOE starts over for river protection job 53 UPI: NNSA wins support for Pantex reform plan 54 NewsChannel6: D.O.E. To Allow Universities and Others to Conduct 55 KNDO/KNDU: CH2M Hill Installing "Umbrella" Over T-Farm ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IPS-English NUKE PROGRAMME-IRAN: Situation about to enter irreversible phase of trade offs, says UAE daily Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:33:59 -0700 From: WAM Service Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) ABU DHABI, Apr. 24 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) English daily today commented on the continuing stand-off between the West and Iran over the latter's nuclear programme with the European Union having agreed to impose stiffer sanctions against Tehran to pressure the Islamic Republic on the programme. Commenting editorially in its issue of today, the Dubai-based ‘Khaleej Times’ said: "As EU foreign ministers have agreed to implement tougher sanctions to pressure Iran's nuclear programme to a halt, the upcoming meeting between the EU policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani assumes an increasingly critical nature. "They provide for the last attempt to waive the coming sanctions, which are stronger than those proposed by the U.N., provided Iran is still willing to halt the nuclear production cycle. “It bears reminding that recurring international developments of late have bolstered the argument favouring negotiations and diplomacy to settle matters of contention instead of threats and use of force. The more prominent examples include successes on the North Korean front and Iran itself, when back-door give-and-take secured the release of British sailors recently. "Therefore, it cannot be argued enough that both sides must be willing to exhibit unprecedented flexibility when they sit down to talk on April 25. Both need to realise that history has proved time and again that economic sanctions hurt only the common people of the targeted country, which nobody wants. And considering how the Iranians have had to bear the brunt of international fury over its hard-line revolution for years on end, there's no way they could have more stomach for the same. "While the international community has still yet to make an effective case of how Iran is violating the NPT, the Ahmadenijad dispensation, for its part, is not exactly placing the interest of the people above all things, since it's apparently willing to risk considerable economic tightening for them. "Therefore, as the situation is about to enter an irreversible phase of trade offs -- Iran is sure to respond in some manner to the sanctions -- a last minute realisation is unlikely to avert further rising of tempers and subsequently stakes, but is not an outright impossibility. That is what the bulk of the concerned international community, and an even more anxious Iranian public, is holding its breath in anticipation of," concluded the paper. (WAM) (WAM) ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] US Breaks Its Word, Keeps N Korea on Terror List Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:47:41 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com US Keeps N Korea on Terror List Seoul, Apr 24 (Prensa Latina) The US will keep the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea listed as a sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran and Iraq, violating what it said in an accord on February 13. Yonhap news agency said anonymous diplomatic sources forwarded that the Department of State report will repeat its position held until November last year, even though the subsequent US-PDRK accord says the US "will start bilateral talks. to advance towards restoring full diplomatic ties." Washington said it "will no longer label the PDRK as sponsor of terrorism nor use the Trading with the Enemy Law against the PDRK." Yonhap says the report Guidelines of Global Terrorism will be issued over the weekend or next week with the PDRK listed again, even though its actions over the past 20 years don't point to such a conclusion. The PDRK pledged to close down its reactor at Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang within 60 days in exchange for 50,000 tons of oil. The deadline expired on April 14 but the PDRK tied the closing to the return of 25 million dollars the US had frozen at Delta Asia Bank in Macao, The Philippines. ef emw jhb mf PL-16 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 People's Daily: China says six parties still cooperate on Korean nuclear issue UPDATED: 17:45, April 24, 2007 Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao Tuesday said relevant parties still keep contacts and take a cooperative attitude in dealing with the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. He said parties concerned reiterated their commitment in the joint document signed at the end of the 5th round of six-party talks on Feb. 13, and China values these important commitments and speaks highly of the positive statement they have made. Some technical problems are yet to be completely resolved in transferring the fund of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), but all parties are still making efforts to properly handle this issue at an early date, Liu said. Source: Xinhua Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: Analysis: N. Korea's Macao funds United Press International - International Intelligence - Analysis Published: April 24, 2007 at 12:25 PM By LEE JONG-HEON UPI Correspondent MACAO April 24 (UPI) -- Hope is growing for a resolution of the longstanding banking dispute that has derailed efforts to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons drive, following a trip by North Koreans to a Macao-based bank that has frozen Pyongyang's assets under U.S. restrictions. During their visit to Banco Delta Asia, North Korean officials have sought ways to transfer their deposits, worth $25 million, to other banks in Asia, according to sources in Macao and Seoul. North Korean officials, mostly from Zhuhai, China's special economic area bordering Macao, have traveled to the former Portuguese enclave to meet BDA officials to resolve the financial issue, they said. But no North Korean officials were spotted publicly at the bank located on the busy financial street near Senado Square in central Macao. Officials at BDA and the Monetary Authority of Macao declined comment on North Korea's funds. If the North Koreans successfully move the controversial funds to other banks, they say they will carry through with their nuclear obligations under the Feb. 13 agreement as promised. It would take more than a month for the transfer of all 52 accounts to be completed. Last week, North Korea renewed its promise to start shutting down its nuclear reactor once the banking dispute is settled. In a message to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of North Korea's atomic energy department, Ri Je Son, said his country would invite in U.N. atomic agency inspectors the moment it can confirm that its funds have been unblocked. The message also suggested some progress had been made as it said the banking issue has not yet been "completely" settled. "Working negotiations are now brisk between a DPRK (North Korea) bank and the above-said (Macao) bank to settle the issue," the message said, accorinding to the North's Korean Central News Agency last Friday. "The DPRK still remains unchanged in its will to implement the Feb. 13 agreement, but what matters is that it cannot move as the issue of frozen fund has not yet been completely settled." The communist North has called for the Macao assets to be transferred to other international banks, a move to rebut suspicions that the funds were linked to illicit activities, such as money-laundering or counterfeiting. By transferring the funds to other offshore banks, the North wants to see the money accepted internationally and to keep using the international banking system to manage its overseas funds. But it still remains unclear whether any banks would accept the controversial North Korean funds at the risk of losing reputation. Foreign banks have been reluctant to handle the North Korean funds and fear being tainted by suspect money. Reflecting the concerns, Hong Kong-based HSBC reportedly has halted transactions with BDA to avoid any role in North Korea's money transfer. With the access to HSBC cut off, only the state-run Bank of China can be used as a channel to move North Korea's BDA funds. There are 27 banks operating in Macao, but all of them, excluding BOC and HSBC, look so small that they can hardly handle the large sums of the accounts, according to financial sources. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department officially prohibited American banks from doing business with BDA, effective April 18. The Macao bank said it had filed a legal challenge to the Treasury Department ruling, calling it "arbitrary and capricious." BDA seems to have delayed the resolution of the North Korean fund issue in an apparent bid to press the United States to remove the bank from the blacklist. The U.S. measure threatens the survival of the Macao bank as it can no longer deal with U.S. dollars and is reduced to transactions in the territory's pataca currency. BDA is a private, family-run bank whose major shareholder is Stanley Au. Its deposits were about $318 million before the Treasury Department took action against it in 2005, and by last July its deposits had dwindled to $205 million. The Macao bank has also been a broker for North Korea, selling its gold and silver. The cash-strapped country earned about $120 million by shipping gold and silver from 2002 to 2004 through BDA, according to a report by the Ernst and Young accounting firm. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Future of North Korea Is Weighed From the Associated Press Wednesday April 25, 2007 1:31 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The general in charge of U.S. forces in South Korea said Tuesday that North Korea could become a ``moderate nuclear power'' by 2010 if current disarmament negotiations fail. Separately, a former Bush administration anti-proliferation official said the United States might be extending the longevity of what he called the most repressive regime in the world by making deals with the North Koreans. U.S. Army Gen. B.B. Bell told lawmakers that North Korea will continue to develop nuclear weapons barring a breakthrough by five nations pressing the North to abandon its atomic bombs. He said North Korea, which tested a nuclear device last year, may now have as much as 110 pounds of plutonium, enough to produce up to seven nuclear weapons, analysts say. Leader Kim Jong Il's government, Bell told the Senate Armed Services Committee, views its ballistic missile program as a source of international prestige and regional influence, a deterrent against attack and a means of generating money from exports. As a result, he said in testimony, the North continues to produce missiles ``and may ultimately aim to develop nuclear armed missiles to threaten regional countries and even the U.S.'' North Korea pledged in February to begin abandoning its nuclear program in return for energy aid and political concessions, but it missed an April 14 deadline to shut down its nuclear reactor. The North has refused to act until it receives $25 million in cash frozen after a Macau bank, Banco Delta Asia, was blacklisted by the United States for allegedly helping the North with money laundering and counterfeiting. The funds have been freed for withdrawal, but for unknown reasons the North has not yet acted to recover the money. Bell said the North is not experienced in international banking and should be given more time to figure out how to access its money. He described himself as cautiously optimistic that North Korea would fulfill its February pledge. South Korea's envoy at international nuclear talks, Chun Yung-woo, said Monday in Washington that the United States and South Korea are frustrated with North Korea's failure to meet nuclear disarmament obligations but are willing to give the North more time to act. Elsewhere, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Alexander Vershbow, urged North Korea to carry out its pledge. Only then, he said, would North Korea receive a promised shipment of fuel oil. South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung warned Monday that delivery of shipments of rice to the North depended upon North Korea's fulfilling its commitment to shut down its main Yongbyon reactor. Vershbow said the United States did not advocate the use of food as a weapon, but he said such threats had influenced North Korea to negotiate on its weapons program. Also Tuesday, Robert Joseph, the State Department's senior arms control official until last month, said the United States could be prolonging the life of the regime in Pyongyang as North Korean leaders pretend to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for energy aid. Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, Joseph urged the five nations to hold back concessions until the North fully and irreversibly dismantles its nuclear program. Calling North Korea ``the most repressive, the most totalitarian government on the face of the earth,'' Joseph said North Korea recognizes that joining the international community would mean the end of the regime's absolute power over its people. --- AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: NKorea has still not taken blocked funds - China - Tue Apr 24, 12:08 PM ET BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea has still not withdrawn money from a Macau bank despite weeks of efforts to free up the funds that have proved crucial to ending Pyongyang's nuclear programme, China said Tuesday. "The question is how and by what way can the DPRK (North Korea) get the money and realise the normal transfer of the funds," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters. "There are still some technical issues on this question." North Korea missed an April 14 deadline to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor under a February six-nation accord, saying it would only do so once it received 25 million dollars that had been frozen in Macau's Banco Delta Asia. The United States blocked the funds in Banco Delta Asia in late 2005 after accusing North Korea of money laundering and counterfeiting but agreed -- following the February accord -- to release the money. The United States said last month that money was now available for North Korea to withdraw, but the issue remains outstanding. Other banks reportedly are unwilling to touch the money because the United States had originally said it was contaminated and they believe the decision to release the money was made for political rather than legal reasons. Despite the continued delays, Liu insisted that North Korea and the other five nations in the six-party talks remained committed to the February agreement. The February agreement calls for North Korea to shut down its nuclear plant and invite international nuclear inspectors to the facility in exchange for 50,000 tonnes of fuel oil and talks on diplomatic recognition. Following this "initial phase," up to 950,000 tonnes of oil or aid equivalent would be offered to North Korea in exchange for the complete dismantling of all its nuclear programmes. The six-party talks, which involve China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia, began in 2003 with the aim of ending Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions but have been plagued by long delays and setbacks. They also failed to stop North Korea from conducting its first test of an atomic bomb in October last year. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Aims to Reassure Russia on Defense Sites - Missile, Radar Facilities in Poland, Czech Republic Have Worried Moscow By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 24, 2007; Page A12 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday in Moscow that Russian leaders appear concerned a U.S. plan to place 10 missile-defense interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic could pose threats to Russia, should the characteristics of the facilities change in the future. After meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, Gates said: "The current design and current 10 interceptors, they acknowledge are not probably a threat to Russia in any way." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talks with reporters during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington in this March 22, 2007 file photo. (Manuel Balce Ceneta - AP) But, Gates added: "I think one of their concerns is . . . a few years from now, the character of these sites might change and, in fact, become a greater concern in terms of Russia's strategic security. And I think those are issues that we can address." Gates said Putin mentioned his concerns about the forward base agreements the United States has reached with Bulgaria and Romania. And recently, other U.S. officials have publicly discussed how the missile-defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic will lead to deepening bilateral defense relationships with those countries. Gates, who spent much of his CIA career analyzing intelligence about the Soviet Union, said: "I think there are some misunderstandings about some of the technical characteristics" of the radar and interceptors, and he said they could be clarified. The U.S. plan calls for putting in Poland 10 silo-based interceptor missiles, which would carry non-explosive warheads and would occupy an area about the size of a football field. The "kill vehicles" on the interceptors are objects of about 150 pounds, designed to destroy enemy warheads at heights of 45,000 feet by hitting them at great speeds. The missile will not be tested until 2010. In addition, Washington proposes to place a fixed midcourse radar system in the neighboring Czech Republic, possibly along with a transportable one. The system would be rebuilt from one now based in the Marshall Islands. The stated purpose of the facilities is to protect U.S. forces deployed in Europe -- as well as allies and friends -- from long- and intermediate-range missiles launched from Iran or another Middle Eastern site. The plan is to have the systems in place by 2013, two years ahead of when U.S. intelligence believes Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear warhead to go with it. Gates said yesterday he thinks that the Russians "are skeptical" Iran would have such a weapon, but that he told them they had to think 10 to 20 years ahead. "Based on my own experience in the intelligence world," Gates told U.S. and Russian reporters, "anyone who would argue that Iran or other countries in the Middle East might not have missiles with that kind of range and capabilities would be making a very risky assessment." The defense secretary said the Russians have been invited to look at the U.S. interceptor site in Alaska and a radar system in California similar to the one planned for the Czech Republic. We "would like to have the Russians as partners in this process," he said. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 8 MHNN: Hinchey proposes his own energy bill April 24, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Hinchey - repeal the 'tax break' Kingston -- Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley has introduced legislation that he said would solve short-term and long-term issues regarding high gas and home heating oil prices, and would reduce environmental impacts of energy operations across the nation. The bill would increase incentives for buying hybrid vehicles and wind and solar energy for homes, double funding for Energy Star programs, increase fuel economy standards, and repeal approximately $8 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, nuclear, and coal companies. Speaking at his Kingston office, Hinchey said his plan would repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks from an industry that is already making billions of dollars. “By taking back $8 billion or more in that way we have a very substantial amount of money to provide tax incentives for homeowners and for business people to put solar collectors on their home, and also using that money and money from other sources for research and development to continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, and energy conservation.” Hinchey is optimistic about the chances of his bill’s passage. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 9 UPI: Russia, U.S., in missile shield talks United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: April 23, 2007 at 12:11 PM MOSCOW April 23 (UPI) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Moscow Monday trying to ease Russian concerns about U.S. plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe. Gates was to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin officials about plans to install a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian officials remain suspicious about U.S. assertion's that the shield is intended to defend against missile threats from Iran, the Financial Times reported Monday. Iran claims its nuclear program is for the development of energy sources but some Western countries say it is to develop atomic weapons. "Since there aren't and won't be (Iranian missiles), then against whom is this system directed? Only against us," said Sergei Ivanov, Russia's first deputy prime minister and a former defense minister. Ivanov told the Financial Times he saw "no grounds" for Russia to join the United States in creating a joint antimissile system. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: US tries to reassure Russia over missile shield - by Jim Mannion Tue Apr 24, 4:12 PM ET WARSAW (AFP) - Washington is open to talks with Russia to ensure future US missile defense capabilities pose no threat to Moscow's nuclear deterrence, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday. Speaking in Poland, which is considering hosting interceptor missiles as part of Washington's planned missile defence system based in Eastern Europe, Gates continued his efforts to convince Moscow that the scheme was not counter to its interests. "In terms of assurances that the system would not be changed years from now in a way that might be more threatening to the Russian deterrent, it seems to me that is a matter that can be negotiated," he told a press conference. Gates provided no details and it was unclear whether the scope of such negotiations would involve the broader US missile defense system, or only the proposed European component. His comments came as it was announced that US President George W. Bush would meet his Polish counterpart Lech Kaczynski in Warsaw on June 8 to discuss the system, which the US claims would deter a potential threat from Iran. Gates has invited the Russians to inspect a US interceptor missile site in Fort Greely, Alaska and a radar in California to clear up what he said was Russian misunderstanding about the capability of the system being proposed for Europe. "Clearly, they have questions about the capabilities of the radar, and I think those are questions that we can answer," he said. The US has proposed siting 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a targeting radar in the Czech Republic by 2012. They would be oriented toward ballistic missile threats from the south. Polish Defence Minister Aleksander Szczyglo, who joined Gates in a press conference after they held talks here, said Warsaw was prepared to host the missile defence site if it enhances Poland's security. "This US project should increase the level of security in Europe, specifically in Poland," Szczyglo said. The US defence chief also sought to allay Polish concerns that hosting the missiles could bring retaliatory measures from Russia, which is riled by the US plan to extend the defense system to its backyard. He said he did not believe that Russia is a military threat to Poland "either now or should we install a missile defense." "I said in Russia we aren't talking about tomorrow or next year but what the world will look like in 10 or 20 years. The world changes in dramatic ways and what we are talking about here is indivisible security for the United States and our NATO allies," he said. "We would like to extend that umbrella to Russia and partner with Russia, to have Russia be with us in this program," he said. Despite repeated rebuffs from Russia, Gates said he was "cautiously optimistic" after his talks Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov and Defence Minister Anatoly Serduykov. He said the two countries could explore new concepts and technologies, conduct joint research and development of missile defence systems, share missile early warning data, and improve their forces' ability to operate together on missile defence. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday however told reporters in Luxembourg the planned US missile shield could destabilise Europe and called for "a joint analysis of the threat." "One gets the impression that everything has already been decided in Washington," he said, adding, "We don't really see a way of joining the project, we don't see what interest there is in that." The plan has also unsettled some US allies, including Germany, which Gates is scheduled to visit on Wednesday before returning to Washington. He was due to hold talks with President Kaczynski before leaving Poland. An opinion poll published by the CBOS agency found that six in 10 Poles are opposed to the system and only 25 percent favor it. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense From the Associated Press Tuesday April 24, 2007 7:46 PM By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WARSAW, Poland (AP) - The Bush administration is willing to negotiate with Russia on limitations to proposed U.S. missile defense bases in Europe, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday. No such negotiations have been set. But Washington is seeking to allay Russian concerns about the proposed system, which would be an extension of a network of radars, interceptors and command posts in the western United States designed to shoot down a hostile long-range nuclear missile. The system in Europe would be meant specifically to protect Europe from a missile launched from the Middle East. The U.S. proposal has stirred controversy not only in Russia but also in Europe. In Moscow, reviving Cold War-like rhetoric, the Russian military's chief of general staff warned that Russia might target elements of the system. ``If we see that the facilities pose a threat to Russia's security, the facilities will be objects for plans of our forces. Whether strategic, nuclear or otherwise - that's a technical question,'' said Gen. Yuri Baluyevksy. His comments were among the harshest in months of Russian criticism of the American plans. Gates, at a news conference with his Polish counterpart, acknowledged that Russia has concerns not only about an advanced missile-tracking radar that the Pentagon wants to place in the Czech Republic but also the associated missile interceptors that it would install in Poland. The interceptors are intended to collide with a hostile missile during flight, destroying the target while still outside the Earth's atmosphere. The system's results during testing have been mixed. Gates said the Russians' questions about the radar ``are questions that we can answer.'' And he noted Russian expressions of concern that the proposed interceptor base in Poland, while not a threat to Russia now, could later be changed in ways that would undermine the viability of Russia's offensive missile force. ``In terms of assurances that the system would not be changed years from now in a way that might be more threatening to the Russian deterrent (force), it seems to me that's a matter that could be negotiated,'' he said. Gates did not elaborate. He has previously said missile defense bases in Europe are not targeted at Russia and should cause Russia no concern, now or in the future. He also has said the Bush administration is willing to address any Russian worries. On Monday he offered to permit Russian officials to visit a missile interceptor base in Alaska and a missile-tracking radar in California to see how they work. Gates met with Polish Defense Minister Aleksander Szczyglo and later with President Lech Kaczynski. On Monday, he met in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin and other government leaders. The Russians reiterated their opposition to the missile defense plan. At the news conference, Szczyglo did not commit Poland to hosting a U.S. missile defense base. He said Poland would have to be persuaded that the base would enhance Poland's security - an apparent allusion to concern that it might trigger countermeasures by Russia. Szczyglo also said his government believes that Russia's objections have more to do with internal Russian politics - including the approaching 2008 presidential election - than with real concern about security. Gates' visit signaled a Bush administration move to intensify its push for Polish approval of the plan. Last week Eric Edelman, the top policy adviser to Gates, discussed the issue before a parliamentary committee here, alongside Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. Edelman accompanied Gates to Warsaw on Tuesday. Obering is visiting Prague this week to consult with Czech officials on pursing a formal agreement for basing the advanced missile tracking radar in that country. On Wednesday Gates was flying to Berlin to discuss the missile defense issue with German officials. Polish public support for hosting the U.S. missiles has been sliding. In new poll results released Monday by the CBOS, a government-affiliated public opinion research center, 57 percent of Poles opposed the plan. That was up two points from February. Supporters dropped three points to 25 percent. The survey was done between March 30 and April 2, and had a margin of error of three percentage points. A similar poll conducted in the Czech Republic found 68 percent opposed to hosting a U.S. radar base as part of the missile defense system, while 26 percent said they approved. That poll, conducted April 2-9, had a margin of error of three percentage points. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Moscow cool to US missile reassurance Luke Harding in Moscow and Ewen MacAskill in Washington Tuesday April 24, 2007 The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, received a cool reception in Moscow yesterday when he attempted to reassure Russia over the US's controversial missile defence plans in eastern Europe. Mr Gates met the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and Russia's defence minister, Anatoly Serdyukov. His two-day visit is part of a belated charm offensive by the Bush administration designed to convince Russia, as well as sceptics within Europe, that the missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic do not threaten European stability or Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal. "The days of the cold war are over. No one should seek a return to them," Mr Gates said. "We invited Russia to join our defensive endeavour as a partner." After the talks, Mr Putin and President George Bush spoke by phone and agreed to discuss the issue during the G8 meeting in Germany in July. US officials claim US missiles are aimed at protecting Nato countries from attacks by Iran and North Korea. But yesterday Mr Serdyukov told the news agency Interfax: "The strategic missile defence system is a serious destabilising factor which could have a significant impact on regional and global security." Mr Gates, a former CIA head who favours diplomacy over military solutions, told reporters later that he sensed more flexibility than Mr Serdyukov's statement might have indicated. "I felt like we made some headway," he said. Russia says the location of the bases means that the missile interceptors are directed at Russia's nuclear arsenal. Although the US administration is portraying the shield as protection from possible threats from countries such as Iran or North Korea, Washington is also responding to concerns from Nato countries in eastern Europe who remain fearful of a Russian return. At yesterday's meeting with Russia's president, Mr Gates offered a series of concessions. They included sharing parts of the system. Russian officials would also be invited to inspect the bases. But the Pentagon intends to move forward whatever the response, a senior Bush administration official said. "We're going to continue to make this effort with Russia; but we're also very clear - whether Russia cooperates with us or not is really up to Russia," the official said on Sunday. Washington wants to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, at a cost of $3.5bn (£1.8bn). Russia has long objected to a US military presence at its periphery. The Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told the Guardian that Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon and was considering a rival scheme. "It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability," he said. Useful links Itar-Tass news agency Moscow Times Russia Today St Petersburg Times Caucasian Knot Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Panel Says Case Not Made for New Warhead From the Associated Press Tuesday April 24, 2007 6:16 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has yet to make the case for building a new generation of replacement warheads and ``the role of nuclear weapons'' in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, a panel of nuclear weapons experts said Tuesday. Development of the new warhead, the first in two decades, could have ``international impacts'' if critics view it as a new weapon rather than a replacement for the current aging stockpile, said the scientists, including three former directors of the government's nuclear weapons research laboratories. Some countries could see the warhead ``as contrary to both the spirit and letter'' of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ``unless explicit and credible efforts to counter such assertions are made,'' said the panel, which was convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to study the warhead plan. The scientists also said in a report that it is impossible to estimate the cost of warhead modernization plan, or assure that Energy Department claims of cost savings will ever be achieved. Proponents of the program may be ``overselling'' the eventual benefits, the report said. Thomas D'Agostino, head of the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which is spearheading the warhead project, called the report ``a valuable contribution'' to the discussion. He said the recommendations were ``consistent'' with the agency's plans to move forward. While the report raised some concerns, D'Agostino noted that it also concluded that development of the warhead ``could be a prudent hedge'' against the uncertainties of an aging weapons stockpile. He said NNSA will closely review the report's recommendations The administration argues the new warhead is needed because of concerns about maintenance and future reliability of the existing warheads in an era of no underground nuclear testing. It would be designed to be more robust, more easily maintained and include improved safeguards to prevent potential use by terrorists, its proponents maintain. They also said it may allow future reduction of the number of warheads needed in reserve. Reaction in Congress to the administration's proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW, has ranged from skepticism to sharp opposition in recent weeks. The administration is asking for $89 million to proceed with a design plan and draw up a detailed cost estimate over the next year. Democrats and Republicans on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons activity have questioned the need for the warhead, its impact on nuclear proliferation, and whether to proceed at a time when the Energy Department also is undertaking a broad consolidation of its nuclear weapons activities. Last week, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees nuclear weapons programs and a strong supporter of the RRW program, complained that the White House, State Department and Pentagon must ``take a more active role'' to sell the modernization and ``answer critics who says the RRW will lead to an arms race.'' The panel of scientists said the Bush administration has failed to ``clearly lay out the role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 world that makes the case for and define future stockpile needs that argue the case for the RRW,'' said the report. Without such an assessment, the report said, it will be difficult to attain broad bipartisan support for the new warhead program to be undertaken over several decades, or to counter critics' claims that it sends the wrong signal to other countries seeking nuclear weapons. The private panel was chaired by Bruce Tarter, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's members included two other former directors of the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos weapons labs, senior weapons scientists, former Energy Department officials and university experts. The Energy Department last month announced that weapons engineers at Lawrence Livermore in California would develop a design for the new warhead and detailed cost estimates. An interagency nuclear weapons council gave the go-ahead in December to proceed with planning for a new warhead to replace the current warhead on the submarine-based Trident missiles. Replacements for other warheads in the nuclear stockpile would be developed later. D'Agostino told a congressional panel last month that the new warhead would reduce nuclear proliferation concerns because it would further reduce the total number of warheads kept in reserve and not require underground tests. Under a treaty with Russia, the United States has agreed to reduce the number of deployed warheads in active status to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. Another roughly 4,000 warheads are believed to be in reserved, although the exact number is classified. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 Taipei Times: Editorial: To build or not to build? Tuesday, Apr 24, 2007, Page 8 The proposed construction of the Suhua Freeway has stoked a fierce debate between President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó), the four Democratic Progressive Party presidential aspirants and environmental groups. Earth Day last Sunday made this issue all the more relevant, and the fate of the project will have a significant impact on the state of environmental protection in this country. It is the government's responsibility to encourage industrial investment, boost employment, facilitate development of the transportation system and ensure people have access to utilities. However, Taiwan has in recent years been torn between prioritizing large-scale development projects and protecting the environment. Construction proposals like the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the Meinung Reservoir in Kaohsiung County and the Taipei-Ilan Freeway have caused heated debate. And yet, a broadly accepted arbitration mechanism for disputes has never been established. This is why similar controversies come with every proposed national development project, and this is a serious waste of resources. It also engenders distrust between the government and the public. Government regulations stipulate that major construction projects should first be assessed for their environmental impact before work can begin. These rules seem to address the prerequisite that both construction interests and environmental protection are considered. Unfortunately, given that the independence of the environmental assessments has never been respected, it is common to hear complaints of political interference. For example, the Suhua Freeway proposal seemed like a perfect idea to the government. It would help expand the national freeway system and guarantee the right to convenient transportation for citizens in the eastern part of the country. Some influential individuals, however, strongly opposed the plan because of its potential ecological damage to one of the country's last remaining undeveloped areas. They said the freeway would cause irreversible damage to the ecology in the area, even before the tourists it was meant to attract would have a chance to see it. Discussing and setting public policy is not a black-and-white issue. Instead, there should be various proposals to choose from that cover different routes, construction techniques, building time limits, engineering budgets and environmental impacts. The road construction departments should be responsible for proposing a variety of options, the environmental impact assessment committee should evaluate each of their merits, the government should estimate the budget, and the public response and practical requirements should all be taken into consideration. The agencies assigned to each part of the chain should complement the others by being professional and independent. But with the government accused of already having made its mind up on the matter and trying to interfere in the environmental review, this crucial balance has been upset. Although the government made plans for the highway with the best of intentions, it has already sparked a controversy. It should respect the expert decision of the environmental review committee. If the highway doesn't pass, it shouldn't be built. If it does, the government should explain the merits and flaws of the different plans to the public. If the controversy continues unabated, the government could also take advantage of the year-end legislative elections to put the question to the public in a referendum. Taiwan's environment belongs to all of its citizens and all of them should have a say. This story has been viewed 674 times. Copyright © 1999-2007 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 WNA: Japan orders stricter checks at reactors REGULATION & SAFETY 24 April 2007 The Japanese government will order special inspections of some nuclear power plants after recent revelations of past safety lapses. Trade minister Akira Amari said that the special inspections could force utilities to shut nuclear power reactors in advance of scheduled closures for mandatory inspections. Utilities were ordered by Amari to disclose past cases of safety lapses at their power plants by 30 March. Ten nuclear utilities reported 316 cases of illegal operations at their plants, including data falsification and safety breaches. Over all, 12 power utilities reported around 10,000 cases of falsification at nuclear, fossil and hydroelectric plants. Amari said that four companies - Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), Hokuriku Electric Power, Chugoku Electric Power and Japan Atomic Power Co (Japco) - were responsible for the more serious incidents reported. These included criticality incidents at reactors operated by Hokuriku and Tepco, while Chugoku and Japco failed to report technical problems. As a result, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) will put nine nuclear power reactors under stricter supervision and conduct extraordinary on-site inspections and checks. The reactors are at Tepco's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa and Fukushima-1 and -2 plants, Hokuriku's Shika plant, Chugoku's Shimane plant and Japco's Tsuruga and Tokai plants. Inspectors will also be sent to 125 hydroelectric plants and five fossil power plants. Tepco was also ordered to immediately suspend operations at its Komukawa hydroelectric plant, while Hokuriku was told to halt its Ichinose hydroelectric plant. ***************************************************************** 16 The Hindu: Major obstacles persist in nuclear deal Wednesday, Apr 25, 2007 Siddharth Varadarajan "Big problems" remain on scope of cooperation, termination conditions U.S. insists on including a "right of return" clause Menon will try to give political push at meeting with Burns New Delhi: Despite four days of talks in Cape Town last week, India and the United States have failed to narrow their differences on the conditions under which bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation can take place. Indian officials say that while progress was made on the "principles of cooperation," "big problems" persist on the scope of cooperation and termination conditions. "Quite frankly, there are areas where we have not even reached agreement on what to agree about," a senior official told The Hindu . In particular, seven issues are proving intractable in the negotiations over the crucial bilateral agreement ? the 123 agreement ? which will govern the transfer of nuclear equipment and material from the U.S. The official perception here is that the technical experts have gone as far as their pay grade will allow and that a political push to the process is needed. This is what Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon will try to do when he meets U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns in Washington, D.C. on April 30, the officials say. Heading the list of obstacles is the U.S. insistence on including a "right of return" clause for anything sold under the agreement. Though there is no direct reference to the possibility of an Indian nuclear test, the U.S. draft states cooperation will cease if either country feels a situation has arisen which jeopardises its supreme national interest. In such a situation, there will be a period of consultation between the two sides, followed by the termination of ongoing cooperation. Finally, India will be required to return imported equipment and material ? including its nuclear fuel stockpile. This formulation is unacceptable, say the officials, because it violates the lifetime fuel supply assurances given by the U.S. and because it will convert India's "political commitment" to abide by its test moratorium into an obligation with legal consequences. India favours a more narrowly construed, prospective termination clause linked to any violation of the 123 agreement. Other obstacles Apart from the right of return, the major obstacles are (1) lifetime fuel guarantees for Indian civilian reactors in return for perpetuity safeguards; (2) the U.S. insistence on "fallback" bilateral safeguards in addition to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards; (3) the U.S. refusal to allow India to import components and technology for safeguarded reprocessing and enrichment activity; (4) the U.S. refusal to allow reprocessing of spent fuel; (5) the sequencing of the 123 negotiations and India's IAEA safeguards agreement; and (6) the timing and nature of the Nuclear Suppliers Group's decision to amend its guidelines to allow commerce with India. Real negotiations Despite the gulf separating the two sides, the Indian officials deny that the agreement is on the verge of collapsing. These are real negotiations, said one official, and India was going to play tough on the fine print. "We will not be hustled into giving up our positions just because the U.S. is putting out stories that there will be a breakdown." Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 17 The Hindu: India feels U.S. backsliding on prior commitments Wednesday, Apr 25, 2007 Siddharth Varadarajan `Hyde Act' sums up obstacles in the way of implementation of nuclear agreement NEW DELHI: As Indian officials complete their assessment of the latest round of technical negotiations with the United States over the implementation of the July 2005 nuclear agreement, the words that comes up most frequently to summarise the obstacles in the way are the "Hyde Act." Under the terms of the July 2005 agreement, the Bush administration was supposed to work with Congress to "adjust U.S. laws and policies" to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India. This commitment was further amplified by the March 2006 Separation Plan, wherein Washington agreed to assist India with lifetime fuel supply assurances, including a "strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors." In return for these assurances, India agreed to place its civilian reactors under in-perpetuity "India-specific safeguards" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Measured against these commitments, say Indian officials, the Hyde Act falls short. Simply put, it does not incorporate the full set of waivers that were implicit in the July 2005 agreement when the U.S. agreed to adjust its laws. In particular, the White House never sought to waive Section 123(a)(4) of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for India, which stipulates that a detonation by a non-nuclear weapon state must necessarily lead to the U.S. having the right to demand the return of its equipment and material. As early as July 2006, when the House and Senate versions of the Hyde Act were finalised, India in fact handed over a 12-page dossier to the U.S. in which it spelt out in detail what expectations it had from the July 2005 and March 2006 agreements and how the emerging law was falling short. These concerns were reiterated to Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns on several occasions after that, including in November on the eve of the Hyde Act's final passage. At every stage India received assurances that the final law would be consistent with the White House's obligations. "But now that it is clear the Hyde Act itself is inadequate, the U.S. side is trying to reopen and reinterpret the commitments it made in its agreements with us", an official said. Differences in 7 areas As matters stand, major differences persist in seven broad areas of implementation. Based on extensive interaction with officials close to the process, The Hindu is in a position to provide details of the precise sticking points. Right of Return In July 2005, India gave a political commitment to stick to its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. But now it finds there is pressure to convert the political commitment - which India has every intention of abiding by - into a bilateral legality. The way it does that is through the invocation of the "right of return" in the U.S.draft of the 123 agreement. In the language proposed by the US side, there is a clause which states that in the event that either side feels its supreme national interests are jeopardized, there will be consultations by both sides on the issue which occasioned the concern, followed by a suspension or termination of bilateral cooperation, and then the US side would have the right to demand the return of equipment and material supplied to India pursuant to the bilateral agreement, with compensation payable to the Indian side. This material would include any strategic fuel reserve set up with U.S. cooperation, say officials. India feels this clause is problematic for a number of reasons. First, "supreme national interests" is too vague and could be triggered by a wide variety of issues from a nuclear test to serious political differences between the two sides. Suspension or termination of cooperation cannot be allowed to hang on so slender a thread. What India is proposing is that if India violates the clauses under which bilateral cooperation takes place - for example IAEA safeguards, peaceful use and non-diversion of imported material, failure to store imported material properly etc., then there would be bilateral consultations and in the event of a failure to resolve the matter, a suspension and prospective termination of cooperation. Under no circumstances is India prepared to commit itself to the termination of cooperation applying retrospectively to prior cooperation, leading to the return of imported material. Such a clause would convert the political commitment not to test into something that amounted to an obligation with legal consequences. What is worse, Indian officials say that the US appears to be playing both sides of the NSG and is seeking to insert a "right of return" clause into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines as and when they are amended. That would be tantamount to converting India's political commitment of July 2005 into something that was multilaterally binding, a kind of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) through the back door. Asked whether India had a real fear of the "right of return" ever being invoked by the US, one official said it had implications for any future private participation in the nuclear energy industry in India. "Which company would like to tie up its investment in a situation where the US may invoke the clause? Even if the actual return can be stalled, the US would insist at a minimum that the plant be shut down", said one official. U.S. negotiators were prepared to give it in writing that the U.S. would not insist on the return of spent fuel. "But they are demanding return of nuclear fuel stockpiles, which is a no go for us", said another official. This is another major issue for the Indian side and one where there has been no movement. Indian officials are very bitter about this because they detect a clear attempt by the U.S. side to reinterpret the March separation plan. They say every word of that plan was fought over and what emerged was something both sides signed off on. But now the Americans are baulking at the language contained in Paragraph 15, which clearly links the provision of lifetime fuel supplies, including strategic reserves for safeguarded reactors, to India's decision to place its civilian reactors under perpetual safeguards. Para 15 (c) of the separation plan also has the additional cushion of India taking "corrective measures" in the event of supply disruption, which the US is now interpreting to mean "corrective measures short of termination of safeguards". Indian officials are at pains to clarify that when the March separation plan spoke of "India specific safeguards", India was making a concession which went beyond the commitment given in July 2005 for "IAEA safeguards". The Indian understanding in July 2005 was that the latter would be of the simple INFCIRC 66 variety which India is familiar with - which are safeguards applied in perpetuity to any material which comes from abroad but which do not place the facility per se under safeguards in perpetuity. When the US insisted that safeguards had to be for perpetuity - that facilities could not be taken out of the civilian, safeguarded sector at will - the notion of "India-specific safeguards" was crafted to build in a dual cushion for the country - first, that there would be lifetime fuel guarantees, and second, that India reserved the right to take corrective measures in the event of a disruption. Giving an example to illustrate the problem, officials say that the U.S. may facilitate 200 tonnes of imported fuel for an indigenous safeguarded Indian reactor which is under "in perpetuity" safeguards. If after that no more fuel is forthcoming for one reason or another, India would have no option but to divert nuclear fuel from the non-civilian side to run those reactors. Indeed, if the aim of the US is to progressively squeeze the Indian non-civilian side, then this would be one way of doing it. Delay, suspension or termination of fuel supplies may also come about as the result of political differences between India and the U.S. on a major international issue, officials fear. "Unless we have the right to take corrective measures in the absence of fuel guarantees materialising, this will always be a pressure point on us in foreign policy terms," said a senior official. In order to justify the backtracking from the March separation plan commitment, the U.S. side is citing both the Obama amendment and its new interpretation of Para 15. "Full cooperation" While India has mastered the enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production process itself, Indian officials are not comfortable with the idea that specialized components and technology related to these should be excluded except in terms of the narrow window provided by the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Indeed, officials say they get the feeling that the U.S. is trying to reopen another basic element of the March 2006 separation plan - the exclusion of the fast breeder reactor from the safeguarded sector - in order to incentivise Indian participation in GNEP. But as long as reprocessing and enrichment technologies are excluded, India will continue to have the sword of sanctions and controls hanging over it. "Today, they are attempting to indict Indian officials for the import of an obsolete chip. Tomorrow, something that is bought for use in civilian reprocessing might also lead to sanctions and prosecutions", an official said. The Indian side believes that the July 2005 agreement very clearly spoke of full civilian cooperation and that the US cannot now arbitrarily restrict the scope of cooperation. Reprocessing rights For India, reprocessing is central to the "integrity" of its indigenous nuclear programme. "We were the first country to have reprocessing capabilities in Asia, since 1965. There is no danger of leakage contributing to weapons programme, unlike breakout countries where a little bit of cooperation might make all the difference", an official stressed. In India, all reprocessing of foreign-origin or obligated fuel would be under safeguards including pursuit. There is thus no question of any diversion, they say. "This is not a matter of Indians being greedy or somebody making a concession to us", said one official, referring to what New Delhi feels are motivated stories appearing in the U.S. press over the past few weeks. Indian officials point to the French draft of the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement currently under discussion, which assumes India will reprocess spent fuel. The same is the case with Russia. At the same time, Indian officials stress that reprocessing is actually only one of several critical issues and perhaps the one most likely the Americans will be prepared to make concessions on since it is a purely executive decision. "That is why ? as a psy-op ? they are spreading the word that reprocessing is such a big deal. Because their game plan is probably that after India concedes ground on all the other issues, they will agree to reprocessing to make the deal more saleable in India politically ? "That see how US has reversed 30 years of policy to give India something it never gave other partners'," one official argued. Indian officials reject the argument that a reprocessing agreement would necessarily take a long time to negotiate. The U.S. agreements with Japan, Euratom and Switzerland were complex and took time to negotiate because they all involve provisions for retransfer, they point out. "For example, the Japanese ship spent fuel to France. So do the Swiss, and then re-import MOX pellets. In India, there is no question of transfers and retransfers. So the agreements can be relatively simple." Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 18 WNN: Boiling water reactors proposed for the UK 24 April 2007 General Electric (GE) has submitted its Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) for inclusion on a shortlist for approval in the UK. ESBWR The country is facing the shutdown of its reactor fleet, which will leave it with just one operating nuclear power plant, Sizewell B, by 2023. An electriciy supply gap could begin to grow by 2014 and the country's leaders are keen to retain nuclear energy as an option for its private electricity generation industry. To that effect the resources of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) will be focused on approving a small number of reactors which would likely be built in series by consortia. The NII has approved the UK's two generations of gas-cooled reactors and one pressurized water reactor (PWR), Sizewell B. The most likely candidates for the list are Westinghouse's AP1000 and Areva's EPR - both PWRs. Until now, observers considered GE's ABWR and ESBWR boiling water reactors (BWRs) as unlikely for inclusion, mainly because the UK skills base only has operational experienced with the Sizewell B PWR and one small experimental heavy-water reactor. In addition, British Energy has made investment in maintaining its capability in PWR operation, seeing the design as the most likely for future deployment. Another possibility seen as relatively unlikely for the approval list would be AECL's Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR), a pressurized heavy-water reactor. Nevertheless, Andy White, CEO of GE Nuclear told World Nuclear News that he has held several high-level discussions on the possibility of employing BWR technology. Furthermore, documents on GE's proposals for UK BWRs were submitted to the Department for Trade and Industry in mid-April. White said that many of the former disadvantages of BWRs compared to PWRs, such as a higher radiation dose rate for workers, were things of the past. BWRs have excellent operating records, he said, and previous investment in the UK in favour of PWRs should not count against BWRs because the two "are not so different." According to White, ESBWRs outputting 1520 MWe could be built for $2.8-3.6 billion. The design is expected to receive design approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission during 2007 and is proposed for build at three site in the USA. Further information GE Nuclear WNA's Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom information paper ***************************************************************** 19 YONHAP NEWS: Doosan Heavy to build nuclear power plant facilities in China 2007/04/24 11:01 KST SEOUL, April 24 (Yonhap) -- Doosan Heavy Industries Co., South Korea's largest manufacturer of power generators, said Tuesday it will build nuclear plant facilities in China. The company said it has reached an provisional deal with U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co. to build two nuclear reactors and four steam generators at two nuclear power plants to be constructed in Sanmen and two others to be built in Haiyang. ***************************************************************** 20 JN: NRC to fine Indian Point $130,000 for failing to deliver new emergency sirens Tuesday, April 24, 2007 By GREG CLARY The JOURNAL NEWS Federal regulators plan to fine Indian Point $130,000 for the company's failure to meet an April 15 deadline to install a new emergency siren system for the 10-mile evacuation zone around the nuclear plants. Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said yesterday that the failure to get the replacement sirens working properly, even with a 75-day extension, was a "significant regulatory concern." A spokesman for the NRC noted that Indian Point has 30 days to deliver a plan to get the new system online, the same amount of time company officials have to contest the fine. "They get an opportunity to respond," said Neil Sheehan of the NRC. "It's due process." Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian Point, said it was too early to say when the new sirens would be fully operational, but the company expected to deliver its plan and respond to the enforcement action within the 30-day period. Steets said he didn't know if the company would contest the fine. The nuclear plants failed to meet their deadline after the NRC granted an extension to the original deadline of Jan. 30. Company officials had promised in November of 2005 to have the new system in place by that date, but encountered what the agency agreed were obstacles beyond Entergy's control. That was not the case on April 12, when 31 of the 150 new sirens failed during a critical, radio-controlled test, including all 14 sirens in Putnam County. The company sought a second extension - this time four months - but the NRC refused. Now, it's not clear when a new system will be installed and working. The current system, which uses 156 sirens to tell residents of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange counties to turn on their televisions and radios, will remain in place until the new system passes NRC and Department of Homeland Security requirements. Yesterday, Entergy officials took "full responsibility" for the delays. Steets said the company is committed to getting the new system into place "as soon as possible, but not before it can be sure the new system meets the federal regulations, performs reliably, and addresses the concerns of the emergency planning personnel from the four counties around Indian Point." Local and federal elected officials, as well as environmentalists, remain concerned about the delays. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., called the missed deadline unacceptable. "I hope that this action gets Entergy's attention and forces them to act on the litany of problems they are facing," Clinton said. "I also hope this signals a new willingness by the NRC to undertake tougher oversight at Indian Point." Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano said the fine was a step in the right direction. "Now, the NRC needs to ensure that the new siren system works and is put into use as soon as possible," Spano said. Sheehan said the agency would continue to push the company for a proper resolution, including enforcing minimum volume levels of each siren and the training of local emergency personnel who will trigger the mechanisms in the event of an emergency. "As of now, we have not imposed a hard and fast deadline for operability of the new system, but our expectation is that it will occur much sooner rather than later," Sheehan said. A staff attorney at Riverkeeper said the dollar amount was adequate - if it were a fine for every day the plants work without the overdue system. "Riverkeeper is encouraged by NRC's action, but a one-time fine of $130,000 is small change for a corporation that makes $2 million a day in profit at Indian Point," said Phillip Musegaas, a Riverkeeper policy analyst. "The NRC should exercise its full legal authority and fine Entergy $130,000 a day for each day Indian Point is in violation of the siren order. This situation demands the strictest possible enforcement." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 21 Brattleboro Reformer: Shumlin eyes new VY tax BRATTLEBORO, VT Owner Entergy cries foul By ROSS SNEYD, Associated Press Tuesday, April 24 MONTPELIER -- Senators considering a plan to offer incentives aimed at making home heating systems more efficient have found a way to underwrite it: by taxing the spent nuclear fuel that Vermont Yankee stores at its plant along the Connecticut River. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said Monday lawmakers turned to Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to fund the climate change initiative because the company has enjoyed a "windfall profit" in recent years. The price Vermont Yankee gets for the power it produces has jumped since its operators got permission to boost output by 20 percent. New policies have been put into place that would generate revenue for power producers such as Yankee through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And "forward capacity payments" instituted by the regional transmission network to encourage construction of new generators also are going into Entergy's treasury, Shumlin said. "Those three factors have led to a windfall profit to Entergy that we think it is right and proper to address," Shumlin said at a Statehouse news conference. Combined, the three will generate an estimated $26.1 million for Entergy through Vermont Yankee in 2011, said former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford, who is also a former chairman of utilities commissions in New York and Maine. Assessing a new tax against Vermont Yankee could hurt the whole state, said Brian Cosgrove, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear. In 2005, Entergy entered into an agreement with the state to provide $25 million to its clean energy fund over seven years. Adding another tax is "corrosive," said Cosgrove, and makes the state look bad. "We've lived up to that agreement," said Cosgrove, putting $4 million into the fund to date, with $4.5 million to be added each year until 2012. "You think you have a deal and two years later, all bets are off." Imposing a new tax says a negative message to businesses looking to relocate or set up shop in Vermont, he said. "In Montpelier, they are always talking about building a stronger economy and attracting businesses and then they do stuff like this," said Cosgrove, adding businesses hesitate to locate where their tax future is uncertain. "It's very short sighted and has a very corrosive effect on Vermont's economic future," he said. Not only that, said Cosgrove, in a state that is holding itself up as a leader in reducing greenhouse gases, placing an additional tax on an industry that has "displaced more than 55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide" is contrary to Vermont's green image. Only 20 percent of the energy that Vermont Yankee produces is sold at market rate prices, said Cosgrove. Eighty percent of it is sold to New England utilities at 4.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The rest is sold at 6 or more cents. Last year, the state received $1.5 million in increased taxes because of the increase on that 20 percent, he said. "Vermont has probably the best power contract in the world," he said. "Any other place would kill to get a contract like that." The senators propose to tax Entergy $2 million this year, when it's expected to get an $11.3 million boost in revenues. The tax would rise to $5 million next year and then grow by $2 million a year through 2011. It would expire in March 2012, when Yankee's operating license is due to expire. Beginning next year, the money would be dedicated to an expansion of Efficiency Vermont, an energy efficiency utility that helps consumers reduce their electricity consumption. Senators want to help consumers and businesses reduce their heating fuel use by better insulating properties or improving their heating systems. Home heating contributes nearly half of the pollution created in Vermont, which is why lawmakers promote their legislation as part of a global climate change initiative. "Every dollar we invest in efficiency returns $3," said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, one of the advocates of the legislation. "It's the cheapest kilowatt we can buy because we're not burning it." Gov. Jim Douglas has been skeptical of the efficiency utility expansion in the past, primarily because he opposed an initial proposal to pay for it through a tax on heating fuels. A surcharge would have applied to home heating oil, propane and kerosene. Now that a new funding source has been found, Douglas' spokesman reacted coolly, criticizing the bill for other details. "From our point of view, the sketchy nature of their funding source is just one of the problems," said Jason Gibbs. "The legislation as it's written now is gaping with loopholes that might allow for the establishment of an unwieldy, inefficient bureaucracy that's not accountable to the Legislature, to Vermont's taxpayers." Lawmakers have turned to Vermont Yankee twice before to help pay for other energy issues. A renewable energy fund was created from money the state collected from Yankee when it approved allowing the plant to store spent fuel on the plant site in Vernon. Money also went into the fund from Yankee when the state gave its blessing for the plant to expand the amount of power produced by 20 percent. Bradford said three other states -- Minnesota, Connecticut and Maine -- charge taxes on spent fuel similar to what the Vermont senators have proposed. Some Republican lawmakers echoed the administration's concerns about the bill. "Vermont and Vermonters have a legacy of frugality and common sense, and historically have led the nation when it comes to energy conservation," said Rep. Joyce Errecart, R-Shelburne, speaking for herself and three other GOP members of the House Natural Resources Committee. "But in our view, this bill takes us one step forward and three steps back." Rep. Kathy Lavoie, R-Swanton, added: "We all support cost-effective energy efficiency. There are better ways of making conservation happen, by putting the money directly in the hands of Vermonters with tax credits and tax exemptions for investments in conservation, and providing government help for services from certified efficiency professions." Reformer staff writer Bob Audette contributed to this story. Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ***************************************************************** 22 Xinhua: China's nuclear industry seeks self-reliance www.chinaview.cn 2007-04-24 08:12:11 BEIJING, April 24 -- China is looking to fuel its nuclear power industry with largely self-developed technology by 2020 as it gradually reduces its reliance on imported technology, a senior academic of the nation's top science institute said yesterday. The country has been advocating greater dependence on nuclear energy as part of its efforts to reduce global warming gases emitted by burning fossil fuels. China's first self-developed pressurized water reactor is expected to be put to use by 2017, Ouyang Yu, an academic of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said. The objectives will be achieved based on the digestion and development of the latest technology acquired through the purchase of four nuclear reactors and technological transfer from the Westinghouse Electric Company. During a workshop on the third generation nuclear power technologies in Shanghai yesterday, the head of China Atomic Energy Authority, Sun Qin, reiterated the nation's ambition to develop new generation nuclear power technology. But the nation will have to maintain the policy of combining self-reliance technological development and foreign design imports in the short term, Zhang Huazhu, president of China Nuclear Energy Association, said. The government recently announced the purchase of four reactors from the U.S. company, with an estimated total price of up to 8 billion U.S. dollars. Along with the purchase will come the transfer of AP1000 technology, which is believed safe, cost efficient and advanced compared with the 1970s-era reactors that dominate in China. The deal, in which the extent of technology transfers includes design of the equipment and nuclear facilities as well as technical support, will be completed in May, and the first of the four reactors will begin to generate power by 2013. "It will take a few years for China to absorb the technology and the nation is keen to come up with its own design for the third-generation nuclear facilities," said Ouyang, also chief designer of China's first self-built nuclear power plant. "By 2020, we could basically rely on our own technology." As it seeks to reduce its reliance on coal-fired, polluting plants, China is committed to increasing nuclear power generation capacity to 40 gigawatts by 2020, about five times the installed capacity in 2005. The nation plans to build a strategic reserve of natural uranium. Ouyang said the nation's own uranium ore supply could meet the nation's demands by 2020. (Source: China Daily) Editor: Wang Yan ***************************************************************** 23 The Herald: Powering the future: a nuclear option for Scotland? CAROLYN CHURCHILL April 25 2007 FUTURE IMPERFECT? Hunterston B is due for decommissioning in 2011 but, contrary to what outsiders may think, many locals say they don't have a problem with the plant. Picture: Angela Catlin Gazing out to the Firth of Clyde from the picturesque village of Fairlie, it is almost impossible to ignore one of its closest neighbours. Hunterston B power station provides part of the backdrop for the village's beautiful outlook towards the Cumbraes and beyond. Hunterston B's nuclear reactors have not been operating since last October while repairs to cracked boiler pipes were carried out. Operator British Energy is waiting for consent from industry body the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) to resume normal service. The station in North Ayrshire has been generating electricity since 1976 and, together with Torness in East Lothian, usually creates almost half of Scotland's output. The two stations meet about 40% of the country's electricity needs, but both are due to be decommissioned in the next 16 years, Hunterston B in 2011 and Torness in 2023. During that period, Scotland's electricity usage is expected to soar, with estimates that the population will use 50% more by 2050. On the other hand, 30% of electricity generating capacity from all large plants in the UK will be lost in the next 10 years, leaving a gap in energy provision. Renewable may be the buzz word of the moment, but academics and industry experts highlight the fact that wind, tidal and wavepower are naturally intermittent sources of power. So the question remains whether new nuclear stations will be on the agenda. It appears to many that the answer is inevitably yes "I don't think Scotland can look towards a nuclear-free future," says John Large, an independent nuclear engineer. "I don't welcome nuclear power; it is too risky. But you have to have diversity and can't rely entirely on renewable energy." In Large's opinion, the risks remain. The headline stories are well known, with concerns about the environmental impact of radioactive waste top of the list. Stuart Hay, head of policy and research at Friends of the Earth Scotland, believes it is a crucial factor in the debate. "If the Romans had nuclear waste, we would be digging it up now, wondering what it is," he says. "That is the fundamental problem." According to some of the foremost experts on the issue, these are problems that should be addressed on an international scale. Already, Finland is testing one solution to the waste problem by burying nuclear waste in facilities hundreds of metres underground in a stable geological formation. The UK government has also signalled its support for "geological disposal" as the safest method for the public and environment. Research is also under way to find safer and cleaner ways of generating nuclear energy, and only last month it was announced that a new centre at Strathclyde Univer-sity, in partnership with British Energy, would work towards the development of "safe and efficient generation" of nuclear energy. Professor Jim McDonald, director of the university's Institute for Energy and Environment, says it is time for an end to the polarisation of the nuclear debate. "We haven't really informed the general public about all of the pros and cons of nuclear energy," he says. "It tends to go to the immediate issues associated with high-profile problems like Chernobyl or radioactive materials found on beaches. "For the sake of the public, we need to decouple the discussions so people understand what nuclear means. I am a great supporter of renewable energy, but there is an issue about security of supply with tidal, wave and wind. If we are going to be dealing with the government's low carbon targets, we need to be making decisions on nuclear investment. We don't have the luxury of a long period of consultation." The UK government has a target of reducing its carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050. The reality is that nuclear can play a role in achieving that ambition. In 2005, British Energy issued a report entitled the Torness Life Cycle Study, which examined the CO2 emissions generated by the station's construction, its operation and decommissioning. It estimated that emissions generated in the lifetime of a power station are similar to a wind farm, and substantially less than a coal plant. A nuclear plant produces five grammes of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, compared to 900g/kWh from a coal plant and 400g/kWh from a gas powered station. It has been suggested that new nuclear plants would need to use lower ore uranium which requires more energy to extract but a follow-up study showed emissions would then be 6.85g/kWh. "We have got to face reality," says Sue Fletcher, a spokeswoman for British Energy. "What we have with nuclear is a tried and tested track record. Waste is a factor but we are talking about very small volumes, not even the size of four double decker buses in Scotland. "If we were to build new nuclear power stations, there is a different technology which results in a lower volume of waste, about 10% of what we have at the moment, so it is a shrinking problem. "British Energy is certainly not saying the country needs only nuclear. We are pushing for a mixed energy policy." The Royal Society of Edinburgh carried out an inquiry into energy issues for Scotland last year. Its report recommended a "new generation of nuclear power stations should remain an option". Professor Roger Crofts, the secretary of the inquiry committee, says: "What disappoints me is people who dismiss nuclear without thinking about it as an option. With fossil fuels, there is a clear link to climate change. You cannot compare nuclear and wind, and people who do that don't understand the system. "The fact of the matter is nuclear power can produce base-load electricity which keeps running until you shut it down. "With wind, it is intermittent and you cannot do anything about that. Even if you try to use a high level of wind for electricity, we would still have to have back-up provided by services that are not intermittent." The theory is one thing. Gathering support from communities near the proposed sites for new nuclear stations is another. North Ayrshire's residents know more than most, having lived for decades with the Hunterston power station on their doorstep. They are at the heart of the nuclear debate, but many have simply accepted the reality of life next to a nuclear station. John Lamb, chairman of West Kilbride community council, sits on the Hunterston Site Stakeholder Group, which is comprised of British Energy, local organisations and five community councils. He says: "It has brought sustained employment to West Kilbride. In that respect, it has been advantageous to the economy of the area. "It has a good safety record. It has been here for years. We have effectively got used to it." In Fairlie, sentiments are similar. "Hunterston is a requirement," says Adam Crawford, 52, who runs a picture-framing business in the village. "It has put folk into employment and kept others in jobs. "We have lived with it for years and it has not had any major incidents. We don't have a problem with Hunterston." Boxing clever: why 81% of us now recycle Blue, green and brown - the array of bins appearing on Scotland's streets is testament to an increased uptake in recycling. In 2002, half of the Scottish population participated in some form of recycling, but only one-third of those used kerbside facilities. Four years on and 70% of households can access recycling on their doorsteps, while Scotland has 172 recycling centres and 2554 recycling points. This investment in infrastructure has reaped benefits for the industry: 81% of people now recycle and two-thirds of those are taking advantage of kerbside facilities. Nicki Souter, campaign manager of the Scottish Waste Awareness Group, says: "Recycling is incredibly important. It saves energy and reduces the risk of climate change. It also reduces the need for landfill. It effectively helps save earth's natural resources." Simon and Lynne Inglis, from Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire, began using kerbside facilities as soon as they were introduced to their street in 2003. The couple, who have a two-year-old daughter, Amy, admit that before then they were not proactive in recycling and most of their waste tended to go into the household rubbish bin. Now newspapers, magazines, tins, glass, plastics and even potato peelings are separated and put into their designated boxes, bags or bins. Mrs Inglis, 33, a secretary, says recycling has become second nature. "It has become automatic because the bins are right outside our back door. "It is important when you think of the future. We had to have our eyes opened when it came to the ozone layer. Now we can all do our own bit." For Ms Souter, whose organisation was set up to change the public's attitudes and behaviour towards household waste, there is still room for improvement. "It is about moving up the waste hierarchy by reusing as well as recycling," she says. "It is also about getting people to optimise the use of the systems we have already got. "We can provide a greater range of material that could be recycled and focus on areas where we want to decrease contamination or increase participation. That is more intensive intervention." WHAT THE PARTIES SAY Labour Supports a mixed energy supply and believes that ruling out any single energy source might risk both the energy supply and thousands of jobs across Scotland. Will set new targets aiming to have 70% of waste recycled by 2020. SNP Will block plans for new nuclear power stations and invest an extra £98m in expanding renewable generation and £15m on green energy research. The party aspires to achieve a zero-waste Scotland, with waste prevention as the key. Supports the extension of kerbside recycling, including waste batteries and cooking oil for bio-fuels. conservative Would not oppose plans to replace the current nuclear power stations if the government at Westminster decided to do so. Would tackle the increasing amount of waste sent to landfill by encouraging individuals, businesses and governments to work together to cut annual waste levels. Lib Dem The party rejects nuclear power in favour of a "renewable revolution", with major investment in wave and tidal power and a target of renewable energy supplying 100% of Scotland's electricity by 2050. Pledges to reduce waste and increase recycling, with a major push to improve rates in the business sector. Overall recycling target of 70% by 2020. Green Will oppose new nuclear power stations and shut down existing stations as soon as possible. Nuclear waste should be stored on site in secure storage. Will give every household kerbside recycling, boost community recycling and re-use projects, and give greater incentives for business and industry to reprocess waste. SSP Wants no new nuclear power stations, and the phasing out of existing nuclear power plants. Wants to expand provision of recycling bins and implement kerbside collection to every household in Scotland. All suppliers of goods to the public sector would be forced to use biodegradable and recyclable packaging. Solidarity Wants no more nuclear power stations and the decommissioning of existing ones. Would set ten-year strategic plans to deliver 100% renewable energy generation. Wants clean coal technology to cover the gap during the switch to renewables. Would give local authorities the resources to provide recycling to the highest continental standards. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Add Comment Posted by: James Brown, Ayr on 11:28pm Tue 24 Apr 07 Who is predicting that Scotland will be using 50% more electricty by 2050? Sounds like the 19th century "expert's" prediction that by 1906 London would be 6 feet under horse muck! In between the prediction and the date was the invention of the internal combustion engine. Who is predicting that Scotland will be using 50% more electricty by 2050? Sounds like the 19th century "expert's" prediction that by 1906 London would be 6 feet under horse muck! In between the prediction and the date was the invention of the internal combustion engine. Quote | Report this post Posted by: Dick on 11:40pm Tue 24 Apr 07 Tidal power is not intermittent.. On the contrary it's the only form of renewable energy that's 100% predictable and reliable. Tidal power is not intermittent.. On the contrary it's the only form of renewable energy that's 100% predictable and reliable. Quote | Report this post Posted by: nouveauxscum on 11:41pm Tue 24 Apr 07 Maybe we could run our gaffs on solar and windpower if the coonculs would stop refusing planning permission. Maybe we could run our gaffs on solar and windpower if the coonculs would stop refusing planning permission. Quote | Report this post Posted by: james on 12:07am today Nuclear is a dead end, the illegitimate child of the post-WWII nuclear weapons industry. It's costly beyond all other forms of energy, utterly unreliable (baseload- hah! ask them what proportion of 2006 Scotland's nuclear reactors were working for) and the waste is irresolvable. Nuclear is a dead end, the illegitimate child of the post-WWII nuclear weapons industry. It's costly beyond all other forms of energy, utterly unreliable (baseload- hah! ask them what proportion of 2006 Scotland's nuclear reactors were working for) and the waste is irresolvable. Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 24 People's Daily: China's nuclear plants generate 54.8 billion kwh of electricity in 2006 UPDATED: 12:06, April 24, 2007 China's nine operating nuclear power units generated 54.8 billion kwh of electricity in 2006, or 1.9 percent of the country's total, an official with the state atomic energy agency has said. Sun Qin, director of the China Atomic Energy Authority, disclosed the figures at the on-going seventh China international nuclear industry expo which kicked off in Shanghai on Monday. Sun said China's current operating nuclear power units have a total installed capacity of 6.99 million kilowatts, and the country will have 11 units in operation by the end of 2007, with total capacity of 9.11 million kilowatts. China plans to increase its nuclear power capacity to 40 million kilowatts by 2020, to account for four percent of the country's total electric power, according to the country's medium and long-term development plan for nuclear power building. China built its first nuclear power plant in east coastal Zhejiang Province in 1991. The nuclear industry expo, a biyearly event, was first held in Shanghai in 1995. The current three-day event attracted nearly 200 enterprises from more than 20 countries and regions worldwide. Source: Xinhua Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 25 Financial Express: Brazil, India eye N-energy ties Wednesday, April 25, 2007 HUMA SIDDIQUI NEW DELHI, APR 24 : India and Brazil may explore possible nuclear energy ties at a CEOs’ forum to be launched in June. This forum, to be represented by top corporate leaders from the two countries, will be flagged off when Brazilian President Lula da Silva visits the country in June. During the visit, the Brazilian President and his senior officers are also expected to discuss plans of introducing eco-friendly ethanol fuel in India, external affairs ministry officials said. According to R Viswanathan, joint secretary in charge of Latin America and the Caribbean division in the external affairs ministry, “Nuclear energy is a future area of cooperation between India and Brazil, an influential member of the four-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).” Some big names like Mittal Steel, Videocon (in Mexico) and ONGC Videsh Limited (in Colombia and Brazil) have set up their base in the region. “Brazil’s GDP has already crossed $1 trillion. And given the new technology and marketing strategy, Brazil is very close to becoming an agricultural superpower,” Viswanathan added. Companies from both the countries are forging tie-ups with each other.” © 2007: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: NRC proposes $130,000 fine on Entergy NY Indian Pt Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:32PM EDT NEW YORK, April 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday proposed to fine Energy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) $130,000 for its failure to meet a deadline to implement a new alert and notification system for the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. The NRC noted the existing notification system is capable of alerting the public near the plant if an emergency occurs. In addition to the proposed fine, the NRC wants Entergy to provide its plan to fix the new system within 30 days. A spokesman for the plant said the company had not yet decided whether to pay or oppose the fine. He said the company was close to getting the system in operation last week but still has to perform some additional tests, fine-tuning and training. Like other U.S. nuclear power plants, Indian Point is required to have an alert and notification system within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the facility. The system notifies the public should a serious incident occur so that citizens can listen to emergency broadcast stations for information and instructions. Entergy is replacing its current system (which is still in working order) with a new one that features, among other things, backup power, in response to an NRC order implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act included a provision directing the NRC to require nuclear plants located within certain population densities to have backup power for their notification systems, including sirens. Indian Point is the only plant that fell within the requirement. The order initially required Entergy to have the new system in operation by Jan. 30, 2007. However, the company was unable to meet that deadline and requested an extension to April 15. The NRC approved that request on Jan. 23. On April 13, Entergy requested a second extension, this time to Aug. 31, but the NRC rejected that request after determining the company had not demonstrated "good cause." The 2,044 MW Indian Point station is located in Buchanan in Westchester County, about 45 miles north of New York City. The station has two units: the 1,019 MW Unit 2 and the 1,025 MW Unit 3, which entered service in 1973 and 1976. Entergy said it would file with the NRC for a 20-year extension of the original 40-year operating license for the units in April or May. After the NRC accepts the application, it usually takes the agency about 22 months to make a decision on a license renewal without a hearing and about 30 months with a hearing. One MW powers about 800 homes in New York. Entergy, of New Orleans, owns and operates about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Reuters: Doosan, Westinghouse sign nuclear facility letter | Transportation | Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:02AM EDT SEOUL, April 24 (Reuters) - South Korea's Doosan Heavy (034020.KS: Quote, Profile, Research) signed a letter of intent with U.S. power company Westinghouse to supply nuclear power facilities worth over $350 million, Seoul's energy ministry said on Tuesday. Under the deal, Doosan will provide equipments for nuclear power plants to be built in China by Westinghouse, the ministry said in a statement. The power plants, to be built between 2008 and 2013, will increase China's dependency on nuclear power to 4.7 percent by 2010, from the current 2 percent, the ministry added. The amount of supplies and the price will be negotiated between Doosan and Westinghouse this year, but the ministry said it will be over $350 million. The deal, signed between South Korea's energy minister Kim Young-joo and the president of Westinghouse Stephen R. Tritch at an energy forum in Shanghai, comes as Seoul is aiming to increase nuclear power plant-related exports to $350 million this year from $300 million in 2006. A majority stake of Westinghouse is owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp. (6502.T: Quote, Profile, Research), which took a 77 percent stake late last year as it shifts focus to its nuclear power plant business. ((Reporting by Angela Moon, editing by Keiron Henderson; angela.moon@reuters.com; angela.moon.reuters.com@reuters.net; 82-2-3704-5653)) Keywords: DOOSAN WESTINGHOUSE/ (C) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution ofReuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuterssphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group ofcompanies around the world.nSEO102172 © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 UPI: NRC levies $130K fine on Indian Point United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: April 24, 2007 at 1:51 PM ROCKVILLE, Md., April 24 (UPI) -- Owners of a New York nuclear plant found out the hard way the consequences of missing a deadline to install a new alert system -- a $130,000 fine. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owners of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., has 30 days to respond to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Entergy was unable to install a backup for its emergency alert sirens, which are used to notify the public about an incident. It is required of nuclear plants crossing a certain population-density threshold by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Indian Point, 47 miles northwest of New York City, was the only plant required to do so, said NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci. Entergy opted to install a new alert system, to be in operation by Jan. 30. A week before that date, Entergy applied for an extension, which the NRC granted to April 15. Days before the new deadline, the alert system failed a number of federal standard tests. Entergy immediately applied for an extension until Aug. 15, which the NRC denied. Indian Point's current alert system is operable, and the NRC will monitor it to ensure it is maintained until the new system takes over. "However, the failure to meet the terms of the order by the required due date, despite the additional time provided via our extension approval for you to ensure the system would be operable, is of significant regulatory concern to the NRC," Region I Administrator Samuel Collins wrote in a letter to Entergy announcing the fine. The company now must submit an action plan to the NRC within 30 days and the site will be monitored by the NRC, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 UPI: U.S. designates reactor as user facility United Press International - NewsTrack - Science - Published: April 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM WASHINGTON April 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy has designated its Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor as a National Scientific User Facility. Officials said the designation will help assert U.S. leadership in nuclear science and technology and will attract new users -- universities, laboratories and industry -- to conduct research at the reactor. "Clean, safe nuclear energy must be a key component of our nation's energy mix as our economy and demand for clean energy continues to grow," said Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon. "By encouraging research and development at (the department's) Idaho facility, we are advancing our nation's scientific know-how necessary to spur construction of the next generation of nuclear plants." The Advanced Test Reactor was built to improve nuclear reactor performance and to investigate problems with commercial reactors. Now, as a National Scientific User Facility, officials said the ATR offers unique domestic capabilities for nuclear fuel and reactor materials system development that industry, universities, and regulatory agencies will be able to utilize. The ATR is the only U.S. materials test reactor that can replicate multiple different reactor environments concurrently. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 MHNN: IP should have told local officials about leak in auxiliary steam pipe, says Spano April 24, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc. This story may not be reproduced in any form Spano: "outrageous" Buchanan – A leak in an underground steam pipe at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant caused absolutely no threats to the public’s health and safety, said Entergy spokesman James Steets Monday. In fact, he said that it falls well below the threshold of notification. But, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano is not satisfied. He learned about it for the first time Monday during a conference call despite the fact that it has been leaking since April 7. “This is really outrageous,” he said. “Entergy assures us that the leak in no way is a threat to public safety, and that is reassuring. But that in no way justifies this pack of information.” Steets, though, said there is nothing to worry about. “This is an auxiliary steam pipe line, which is a non-radioactive line, which had some tritium, which is expected in this particular non-radioactive line,” he said. “It is a very minor or small leak that does not add to the groundwater contamination that has strontium 90 and tritium in it now.” Steets said the steam from the pipe is used to heat plant equipment in Indian Point 2 and some offices at Indian Point 3. But, Spano said the leaking pipe “is another sign the aging plants, which are located in a densely populated area, need to shut down.” HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 31 MHNN: NRC may fine Entergy for Indian Point siren delay April 24, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc. This story may not be reproduced in any form New sirens were supposed to go on line in January Washington – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday proposed a $130,000 civil penalty to Entergy for its failure to meet an April 15 deadline to activate its new Indian Point nuclear power plant warning sirens. Entergy originally had a January 30 deadline for those sirens in the 10-mile warning area including parts of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange counties, but when it faces some glitches, it sought and received an extension to April 15. “The failure to meet the terms of the order by the required due date, despite the additional time provided via our extension approval for you to ensure the system would be operable, is of significant regulatory concern to the NRC,” the agency’s Region I Administrator Samuel Collins, wrote in a letter to Entergy. Under the enforcement action, Entergy is also required to provide its action plan for resolution of the problems involving the new system. The plan must be submitted to the NRC within 30 days or prior to declaring the new alert and notification system operable. Entergy spokesman James Steets, meanwhile, said the company takes “full responsibility” for the delay in placing the new system into service. He said his company will submit its “firm plan” within that 30 day period and whether or not they would contest the fine. While Entergy continues to work out the bugs on the new system, the current system continues to function. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 32 Japan Times: Japan, U.S. ink pact on nuclear power reactors | japantimes.co.jp Web Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Kyodo News Japan and the United States said Tuesday they have adopted a plan to advance coordination on nuclear energy policy, including the extension of governmental assistance for building the first new atomic power plants in the U.S. in 30 years. Under the Japanese-U.S. Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan, the two nations will conduct joint studies in six areas, including fast-reactor technology, fuel-cycle technology and waste management. They agreed to hold the first meeting of working groups for each area by the end of June, a Japanese official said. In an effort to prevent proliferation, the action plan requires the two nations to consult on whether to extend assistance, such as infrastructure construction and training, to third countries. The comprehensive cooperation pact is the first on nuclear power that Washington has ever signed with another country, the Japanese official said. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President George W. Bush are expected to adopt the action plan when they meet Friday in the U.S. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 33 AU ABC: Scientist questions nuclear future. 25/04/2007. ABC News Online Uranium has been a hot topic of late, but one environmental engineer believes nuclear energy does not have a justifiable place in Australia's future. Labor will be discussing whether to abandon its long held ban on new uranium mines this weekend at the ALP's national conference, while Prime Minister John Howard has made it clear he believes nuclear power is part of the solution to Australia's future energy needs. But Monash University's Dr Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer who specialises in the mining sector, believes nuclear energy, which currently supplies around 17 per cent of the world's energy needs, will not have a significantly bigger role in the future. "I think there's alternatives such as renewable technologies, there's solar thermal, there's biomass, there's now photovoltaics, there's wind," he said. "There's a whole range of technologies combined with energy efficiency which can supply peak demands and which can meet our energy needs." Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said last year that almost 30 new nuclear power reactors are being constructed in 11 countries including China, India, Russia and Finland, and the recently released Ziggy Switkowski report had a full page on plans for new reactors in Asia. But Dr Mudd says the reactors being built now are replacing those that are closing down. "Over the same time frame, a lot of reactors are going to be decommissioned in the West. There were six reactors in the West that were decommissioned on December 31, including four in the UK," he said. "I think ultimately, they're not building new reactors in the West, they're building reactors in sort of centrally-planned economies, and the one new reactor that they've ordered in the West over the last several years in Finland is significantly behind budget and also behind time." "I think there's real issues there that over the same time frame of which they're supposedly going to expand nuclear power, a lot of the existing ageing reactors will also be decommissioned." Dr Mudd says the 57 per cent rise in uranium prices is puzzling. "I don't think anyone I've seen has a good answer for why the uranium price has hit the sort of magnitude that it has," he said. "A lot of mining industry analysts are also asking about this bubble at the moment, about what is causing this price. I don't think anyone ever predicted the price would go this high." ***************************************************************** 34 Mother Earth News: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER No Thanks Save money now on your energy bills by using our free "30 Ways to Slash Energy Bills This Winter". Download the Guide today when you sign up for free tips from Mother Earth Living. Every week we'll send you 2 tips that will have you leading a greener life in no time, and we'll give you the "30 Ways to Slash Energy Bills This Winter" free. If you don't find the tips are helpful, simply unsubscribe and keep the free Guide as our way of thanking you for trying out the Mother Earth Living newsletter. Web www.motherearthnews.com April/May 2006 By Mark Hertsgaard Taxpayer subsidies for high-risk nuclear power plants should be redirected to promote alternative energy. During a July 2005 lecture in San Francisco, Jared Diamond, author of the best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest and most prominent environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear power as a necessary response to global warming. Addressing an overflow crowd at the Cowell Theater about why some societies fail and others dont (the theme of his most recent book, Collapse), Diamond three times cited global warming as a threat that could ruin modern civilization. During the question period, Diamond was asked if he agrees with Stewart Brand, whose Long Now Foundation sponsored the lecture, that global warming poses such a grave threat that humanity should embrace nuclear power. It was a delicate moment, because Brand the former editor of The Whole Earth Catalog was on stage with Diamond. I did not know that Stewart Brand said that, Diamond replied. But yes, to deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power. Nuclear power, he added, should simply be done carefully, like they do in France, where there have been no accidents. I did not expect that answer, Brand said. Neither, it seemed, did much of the audience. Overwhelmingly white and affluent, most audience members had nodded reverentially at everything Diamond had said thus far about the self-destructiveness of ancient civilizations that leveled forests (Easter Island) or eroded soils (the Mayans) in pursuit of short-term gain; and about the need for the United States to rethink its core value of consumerism if it hopes to survive. They had clapped when Diamond mocked President Bushs see-no-evil approach to environmental protection. Yet now Diamond was urging an expansion of nuclear power, a technology most environmentalists regard as irredeemably evil. Deal with it, crowed Brand as the crowd sat in stunned silence. It was smug but useful advice, for this debate is bound to intensify. The Bush administration and much of Congress are pushing hard to revive the nuclear industry, which currently provides 20 percent of Americas electricity. In June 2005, Bush became the first president in 26 years to visit a nuclear power plant, specifically the Calvert Cliffs facility near Washington, D.C., where he endorsed nuclear as an environmentally friendly energy source. His administrations 2006 budget increased nuclear power funding by 5 percent, even as it cut overall renewable energy funding. Congress did likewise in its 2005 energy bill. Besides giving the nuclear power industry $7 billion in research, development and construction subsidies and $7.3 billion in tax breaks, the bill contains guarantees for unlimited taxpayer-backed loans and insurance protection for new reactors. Diamond may not agree with Bush about much, but their shared support for nuclear power hints at the other factor that will drive the future debate. As the United States experiences more of the killer heat waves and hurricanes that have struck the Midwestern and Southeastern states, more and more Americans will at last recognize what the rest of the world has long accepted: Global warming is here, it will get worse before it gets better, and the economic and human costs will be enormous. As we cast about for alternatives to the carbon-based fuels coal, oil and natural gas that are cooking our planet, nuclear power seems an obvious answer. After all, as Vice President Cheney observed in 2001 when defending the Bush administrations energy plan which urged constructing hundreds of new nuclear plants nuclear fission produces no greenhouse gases. But the truth is that nuclear power is a global warming weakling. Investing in a nuclear revival would make our global warming predicament worse, not better. The reasons have little to do with nuclear safety and more to do with economics, which may be why environmentalists tend to overlook them. Environmentalists center their critique of nuclear energy on safety concerns: Nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or terrorist attacks; radioactivity is released in all phases of the nuclear production cycle, from uranium mining through fission; the problem of waste disposal still hasnt been solved; civilian nuclear programs can spur weapons proliferation. But absent a new Chernobyl-scale disaster, such arguments may not prove decisive. In an atmosphere of desperation over how to keep our TVs, computers and refrigerators humming in a globally warmed world, economic considerations will dominate. This is especially so when dissident greens such as Diamond and Brand are saying that nuclear safety is a solvable problem. The dissidents have an arguable case. Diamond is correct that France has generated most of its electricity from nuclear power for decades without a major mishap. Likewise, its unfair to tar Western companies with the brush of Chernobyl. Incredibly, the Soviet-designed Chernobyl reactor lacked a containment vessel, a flaw that would never be allowed in the West. Dissident greens concede there are risks with nuclear power, as with any technology. But those risks, they say, are less than those of the alternatives. Coal, the worlds major electricity source, kills thousands of people a year through air pollution and mining accidents. Coal also is the main driver of climate change, which is on track to kill millions of people in the 21st century not in a sudden bang of radioactive explosions, but in a gradual whimper of environmental collapse as soaring temperatures and rising seas submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread disease and chaos worldwide. Fear of such an apocalypse led the scientist James Lovelock to become the first prominent environmentalist to endorse nuclear power as a global warming remedy. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (who left the group a decade ago), soon echoed Lovelocks apostasy, as did Hugh Montefiore, a board member of Friends of the Earth. All three were criticized by fellow greens. But environmentalists on both sides of this argument are overlooking the strongest objection to nuclear power, even as the nuclear industry is hoping no one notices it. The best case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running. Remarkably, this inconvenient fact does not deter industry officials from boasting that nuclear is the cheapest power available. Their trick is to count only the cost of operating the plants, not of constructing them. By that logic, a Rolls Royce is cheap to drive because only the cost of gasoline matters,not the sticker price as well. The marketplace, however, sees through such blarney. As Amory Lovins, the energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute a think tank that advises corporations and governments on energy use points out, Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants. Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive. A second strike against nuclear power is that it only produces electricity, and electricity amounts to only a third of the United States total energy use (and less of the worlds). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem having no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings. The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative better energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion, or up to $5 billion with overruns. That money could be spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install superefficient light bulbs and clothes dryers. Such an investment would lead to seven times less carbon consumption than if that money were spent on a nuclear power plant. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power will divert money away from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing the worlds withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential. Mainstream environmentalists do argue that energy efficiency, solar, wind and other renewable energies are better weapons against global warming than nuclear power. But they will fare better if they go a step further and point out that embracing nuclear power is not just unnecessary, but a step backward. Even so, a tough fight lies ahead. As the 2005 energy bill illustrates, the nuclear power industry has many friends in high places. The case for nuclear power will strengthen if its economics improve. The key to lower nuclear costs is to reduce the amount of time it takes to build nuclear power plants, which could happen if the industry at last adopts standardized reactors and the U.S. government streamlines the plant-approval process. On a more fundamental level, any defeat of nuclear power is likely to be short-lived if America does not confront what Diamond calls its core value of consumerism. After all, there is only so much waste to wring out of any given economy. Eventually, if human population and appetites keep growing and some growth is inevitable, given the ambitions of China and other newly industrializing nations new energy sources must be exploited. At that point, nuclear power and other undesirable alternatives will be waiting. Environmentalists have been afraid to talk honestly about Americas consumerism for decades, ever since a cardigan-wearing Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for urging people to turn down their thermostats during the 1979 oil crisis. But now that we have managed through our carbon-fueled pursuit of the good life to turn up the planets thermostat to ominous levels, its time to break the silence. We dont have to freeze in the dark far from it but neither can we keep consuming as if theres no tomorrow. Mark Hertsgaard is a fellow at The Nation Institute and author of Nuclear Inc.: The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy and Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future. Contact Hertsgaard through his Web site, www.markhertsgaard.com. Costly and Dangerous There is no question that nuclear power is a dangerous, high-risk technology, but nuclear power’s poor economics is the primary reason that no nuclear plant ordered since 1974 has been completed. There is a strong link between economics and safety. Reactors in the United States have been badly managed and poorly regulated. As a direct consequence, their costs have been higher and their safety levels have been lower than necessary. Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, which have licensed a grand total of 130 nuclear power reactors in the United States. Fifty times during that period, a U.S. nuclear reactor had to be closed for a year or longer to restore safety levels. This is neither economical, nor safe. Yet we experienced it again and again. U.S. reactors were badly managed and poorly regulated, and unless those two systemic problems are addressed, the future of nuclear power in the United States will probably be a replay of its troubled past. — David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists ***************************************************************** 35 english.eastday.com: Third generation of high-tech nuke power on way 24/4/2007 17:14 Winny Wang/ Shanghai Daily news China is working on the next generation of nuclear power technologies to enhance the country¡¯s innovative ability, according to sources with 2007 International Nuclear Power Energy Industry Exhibition. The country will introduce the third-generation technology and set up two nuclear power units in Zhejiang Sanmen and Shandong Haiyang. The so-called "3rd-generation" technology is expected to be safer and more economical than existing technology and will be incorporated in other nuclear power plants built between now and 2020. China wants to raise the proportion of nuclear power in the country from the current 1.6 percent to four percent by 2020 - this translates to 30 million kilowatts of nuclear power capacity in the next 13 years. The first nuclear power exhibition was in 1995 and is held every two years in China. It attracts nearly 200 companies from more than 20 countries and regions, including France, Russia, Spain and Japan. ***************************************************************** 36 SMN: Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Russian Nuke Reactor Gets European Certificate Sofia Morning News 24 April 2007, Tuesday This is how Bulgaria's second nuclear power plant in Belene should look once it has been built. Photo by Parsons E&C Bulgaria Russian-made A92 nuclear reactors, which Bulgaria picked for its second nuclear power plant at Belene on the Danube, are set to receive a European Utility Requirements (EUR) certificate. The certificate stipulates the minimum requirements that have to be met by nuclear reactors used in the European Union, which Bulgaria joined in January. The ceremony in Moscow will be attended by the three companies that developed the A92 reactor, members of the EUR organisation, as well as Yordan Georgiev, chief executive of the company that will build the Belene power plant. Other members of the EUR club include British Energy, EDF, Fortum, Iberdrola, Nuclear Research & Consultancy Group (NRG), Rosenergoatom, Swiss Nuclear, Tractebel, Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO), Vattenfall and VGB PowerTech. All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2007 - Copyright & Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria ***************************************************************** 37 Guardian Unlimited: Concern Over India-U.S. Nuke Deal From the Associated Press Tuesday April 24, 2007 10:16 AM By MUNEEZA NAQVI Associated Press Writer NEW DELHI (AP) - Talks over a landmark nuclear agreement between India and the U.S. have been slowed by a series of ``complex issues,'' a top Indian diplomat said in comments broadcast Tuesday. Speaking to a private Indian news channel in New York, India's junior foreign minister, Anand Sharma, acknowledged hurdles in talks over the March 2006 agreement, which gives India access to American know-how in civilian nuclear technology. ``I would not say that there is a stalemate as such ... but these are complex issues,'' Sharma told CNN-IBN, adding some issues still needed to be resolved. He gave no details, but Indian newspapers have been quoting unidentified high-ranking officials as saying India has problems with the deal as it currently stands. One point of concern in New Delhi is a nonbinding clause, inserted by the U.S. Congress, which directs the U.S. president to determine whether New Delhi is cooperating with Washington's efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear program. There are also fears that the deal could limit India's right to reprocess spent atomic fuel and employ other sensitive nuclear technologies. To authorize the deal, the U.S. Congress has passed a law allowing Washington to ship nuclear fuel and technology to New Delhi to help it overcome chronic energy shortages, a move that reverses 30 years of U.S. policy. In exchange, India has agreed to place 14 civilian nuclear plants under international inspections. Eight military plants would remain off-limits. The two governments are in the midst of technical negotiations about the nature of the agreement. The nonbinding clause has been criticized by the Indian government's leftist allies and opposition parties, which claim it violates India's sovereignty. They warn it could lead to efforts to cap, or even roll back, India's cherished nuclear weapons program. Concerns about the slow pace of dialogue have been voiced in Washington as well. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday that he hoped Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon's upcoming meeting in Washington with U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, would push the deal along. ``The Indian Government has raised a series of issues in these negotiations concerning our laws ... suggesting solutions that would require us to change our laws ... we're not going to do that, we can't do that,'' he said. ``So we would suggest that we set aside that group of issues and let's focus on areas where the two governments can negotiate and come to agreement,'' he added. Menon declined comment Tuesday. ``We wouldn't like to conduct this negotiation through the media,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 38 Guardian Unlimited: Reactor Makers Asked to Ponder Plane Hit From the Associated Press Wednesday April 25, 2007 1:46 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON(AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed a new requirement Tuesday for nuclear reactor builders to consider how they might increase protection against an airliner crash. The rule, however, does not propose any specific standards nor mandate design changes. ``This proposal gives us the chance to assess and make practicable changes to new reactor designs early in the design process,'' said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. The proposal, expected to be made final later this year after a public comment period, was approved by a 4-1 vote. U.S. companies are considering building as many as 30 new nuclear power reactors. Commissioner Gregory Jaczko, who voted against the measure, had wanted the NRC to establish specific design standards and require that new reactors withstand aircraft impacts. His four colleagues on the commission didn't want to go that far and his proposal was rejected, also by a 4-1 vote. The NRC has certified two reactor designs with several additional ones expected to be certified in the near future. The agency anticipates receiving applications for the first construction and operating licenses before the end of the year. Among the thorniest issues facing the NRC and reactor builders is to what extent the new plants will be protected if a terrorist were to fly a large plane into the concrete containment dome or the plant's fuel storage pool. The new NRC proposal requires companies seeking design approval to first ``assess how the design, to the extent practicable, can have greater built-in protection to avoid or mitigate the effects of the large commercial aircraft impact,'' the agency said. Such an assessment, according to the proposal, should specifically consider design improvements in reactor cooling systems, integrity of the containment vessel and protection of reactor fuel storage pools. Jaczko, in a telephone interview, said the biggest shortcoming in the proposal ``is that it asks questions without getting answers.'' ``We're requiring assessments to be done, but we have put in place no standards for what criteria those designs have to meet to be acceptable,'' Jaczko said. ``We're not requiring them to fix the design.'' Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of the NRC, said the agency ``abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people against a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor'' by not requiring that a new reactor be designed to withstand the impact of a large aircraft. Markey said the proposed assessment ``amounts to a nuclear book report which the NRC may or may not grade'' when submitted by reactor vendors. The three reactor designs that have attracted the greatest interest from American utilities are from Westinghouse Electric Co., owned by Toshiba Corp.; General Electric Co.; and the French conglomerate Areva Group. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor already has received NRC certification, while both the Areva and GE reactor designs are in the application process. All three companies have said their new reactors will be designed with more passive safety features and other improvements to enhance safety. The Areva design, for example, includes a double-hull containment dome. The ability of reactors to withstand an aircraft impact has been a subject of intense controversy. The 103 reactors now in use were designed under regulations that did not require consideration of a direct hit by an aircraft, but concern over such an event has increased since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The nuclear industry has produced computer models that indicate even a direct hit on a reactor would not penetrate the concrete dome and internal reactor vessel. Skeptics have doubts and fear that an explosion and fire from such a crash could release radiation. On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 39 Xinhua: Suspects smuggling nuclear material seized www.chinaview.cn 2007-04-25 03:08:32 MOSCOW, April 24 (Xinhua) -- Belarussian and Lithuanian police have detained two suspects who were smuggling nuclear material across the border, the Itar-Tass news agency reported on Tuesday. r, Itar-Tass said, citing Belarussian Interior Ministry spokesman Yekaterina Samusenkova Shelegova. Police in the two countries have planned for the joint operation for several months. The detainees were staying in Lithuania and prosecutors were holding pretrial investigation, the spokesman said. The Lithuanian Radiation Safety Center was analyzing the seized material, Itar-Tass said. Uranium 238, the most common isotope of uranium, can be used in producing both nuclear warheads or fuel for nuclear reactors. Editor: Luan Shanglin ***************************************************************** 40 ITAR-TASS: 2 Belarussians seized on suspicion of radioactive contraband 24.04.2007, 20.49 MINSK, April 24 (Itar-Tass) - Two Belarussian citizens have been detained on the Lithuanian border on suspicion of radioactive contraband, a source at the Belarussian Interior Ministry said on Tuesday. A metal container with a caption “Uranium 238. 1991” was found on their car. The detention was made in a joint operation of the Belarussian Interior Ministry’s Main Department on Organized Crime and Corruption and the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau assisted by the two border services. The operation was planned for several months. The detainees are staying in Lithuania, Belarussian Interior Ministry spokesman Yekaterina Samusenkova-Shelegova said. The Vilnius district prosecutor’s office is holding pre-trial investigation, and the seized cargo is being studied at the Lithuanian Radiation Safety Center. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 41 FR DHHS: Test site exposure cohort Doc 07-2002 [Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 78)] [Notices] [Page 20341] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ap07-51] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Decision To Evaluate a Petition to Designate a Class of Employees at the Nevada Test Site, Mercury, NV, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at the Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: Facility: Nevada Test Site. Location: Mercury, Nevada. Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers at the Rainier Mesa, including areas 12, 16, and 20. Period of Employment: March 1, 1966 through December 31, 1990. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. Dated: April 13, 2007. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 07-2002 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M ***************************************************************** 42 News & Star: Volunteers exposed to radiation Published on 23/04/2007 By Nick Griffiths WORKERS at Sellafield took part in experiments in the 1960s in which they were exposed to radiation, it has been claimed. National reports say one experiment, described in a confidential memo, involved volunteers drinking caesium 134 – a substance released in fatal quantities following the Chernobyl disaster. The Observer newspaper claimed other experiments involved exposing volunteers to uranium and plutonium. BNG, the company that runs the West Cumbrian nuclear site, declined to comment but pointed out it was not in charge of Sellafield at the time. This follows a week in which the plant was rocked by claims that body parts were removed from dead former Sellafield workers without the permission of relatives. It was revealed that in the 30 years up until 1991, Sellafield carried out research on the hearts, lungs, and other organs of dead former employees. Trade and industry secretary Alistair Darling said BNFL had identified 65 cases in which tissue was taken from corpses to be analysed for traces of radioactive contamination. An investigation is underway. New reports now claim experiments on volunteers were being conducted at the same time. ***************************************************************** 43 Platts: Former US DOE official attacks GNEP on nuclear waste risks, cost Washington (Platts)--23Apr2007 The US Congress should halt funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, at least until the Department of Energy can provide well-supported estimates on the waste the fuel-cycle initiative is expected to produce, a former official with DOE said Monday. In a report and a conference call with reporters, Robert Alvarez, a senior policy adviser to the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton administration, said the technical and financial risks of the GNEP have not been fully evaluated and that Congress likely would "walk away" from the program if it realized those risks. GNEP is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to develop new kinds of reprocessing plants and fast reactors. While DOE's plan calls for aboveground storage of GNEP fission products--principally strontium and cesium--for about 300 years, it actually could take 600 years or more for the materials' radioactivity to drop to levels that would allow them to be stored as low-level waste, said Alvarez, who now is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. Also, Alvarez said, spent fuel is about 95% uranium, and DOE might have to dispose of the uranium as waste rather than turning it into commercial fuel. That is because of the high cost of removing impurities to meet commercial fuel standards, he said. --Daniel Horner, daniel_horner@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 44 Popular Science: Nuking Nuclear Waste - Energy officials argue for a new breed of reactors that run on recycled radioactive fuel By Seth Fletcher | April 2007 Nuclear waste at the Hanford Site in Washington Later this year, scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee hope to take a big step toward solving America's nuclear-waste woes. Pending clearance from the Department of Energy, they will demonstrate a new toxic-waste recycling process. The aim of the demo—part of a controversial $405-million government project called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)—is to transform nuclear leftovers into fuel for a new breed of reactors. The new reactor/fuel combo, GNEP officials say, could produce up to 100 times as much energy as conventional reactors and could generate 40 percent less waste. The initiative is a key part of the Bush administration's long-term strategy to meet America's rising demand for electricity—according to the DOE, it's expected to jump by 45 percent from 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5,800 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030—without creating more greenhouse gases. "Nuclear energy is the biggest source we have for meeting our energy needs without contributing to global warming," says Sherrell Greene, director of the nuclear-technology program at Oak Ridge, one of the 13 potential recycling sites selected earlier this year by the DOE. Another central GNEP objective is to deal with the nation's growing nuclear-waste problem: The country's 103 nuclear reactors produce 2,200 tons of radioactive waste annually, and there's no good place to put it. Even if no new reactors are built, at current rates, the U.S. will have produced more than 94,600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2050, and the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, America's lone long-term solution to radioactive-waste storage, will stow just 77,000 tons when it's slated to open in 2020. Yet not everyone thinks GNEP's strategy for recycling waste is the solution. Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, says that the new type of recycled fuel would contain as much as 90 percent plutonium, making it a much more attractive target to a bomb-building terrorist. Spent fuel from traditional reactors, by comparison, contains only 1 percent plutonium. GNEP officials reject this criticism. The new recycling process, they argue, will not isolate pure plutonium, making it more difficult to convert the leftovers into a bomb. Specifically, the process calls for dissolving spent fuel in nitric acid to chemically extract the nastiest 1 percent—the highly radioactive elements plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium, also known as actinides—as well as depleted uranium. (The remaining waste is stored in traditional casks.) The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors. In this scheme, waste is used repeatedly, transforming it into less harmful elements with each cycle. The Oak Ridge demonstration is intended to be a miniature model (minus the reactors) of how this recycling process could work at the industrial scale. "It's a synthesis of the whole process," says Greene, who is working on the project. In addition to pursuing scaled-down tests of the new recycling technology, GNEP officials will release a draft report this summer on the environmental impact of the potential sites. But the program's defining moment will happen next year when the U.S. secretary of energy decides whether to step up the initiative and build America's first full-scale demonstration plant. Copyright © 2007 Popular Science ***************************************************************** 45 The Australian: Premier backs Rudd on uranium mines NEWS.com.au | * April 24, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP SOUTH Australian Premier Mike Rann has thrown his weight behind a push by Labor's right to overthrow the party's no new uranium mine policy. Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will this weekend try to change Labor's policy but is facing opposition from his environment spokesman Peter Garrett, along with left faction member and water spokesman Anthony Albanese. Mr Rann has written to conference delegates saying new uranium mines could help fight climate change. "Nations are demanding uranium to provide carbon-free energy," Mr Rann wrote. He demanded those who oppose new mines provide another answer to climate change. "The world must reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, as well as recognise the right of less developed countries to a higher standard of living," he said. "We cannot do both these things by relying solely on the traditional energy sources that are contributing to global warming." Mr Rann declared current policy "outdated and illogical", but he maintained his opposition to nuclear power stations and uranium enrichment in Australia. "Nuclear power generation would not stack up financially in Australia, with its small and dispersed population," he wrote. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 46 Japan Times: Toyo voters were confused - Amari japantimes.co.jp Web Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Kyodo News Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Akira Amari said Tuesday that it was a "misunderstanding" that caused a former mayor in Kochi Prefecture who backed the idea of hosting a nuclear waste dump in his town to lose re-election Sunday. "Such a result emerges if (an issue is) put to a vote while the residents suffer from a misunderstanding," Amari told a regularly scheduled news conference. Nuclear opponent Yasutaro Sawayama, 63, defeated former Mayor Yasuoki Tashima, 64, by a landslide in the town of Toyo. Tashima had resigned from office to trigger the election and seek a public mandate on the waste site plan. "TV reports show that some people say that the dangers of radioactive contamination threaten the whole community" of Toyo, Amari said. "The safety of the planned nuclear waste storage site is 120 percent assured." Sawayama is a former member of the municipal assembly of Muroto, Kochi Prefecture. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 47 Tri-City Herald: DOE starts over for river protection job Published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER The Department of Energy is starting over with its search for a manager for the Hanford Office of River Protection. DOE has been looking for a manager since it announced plans in September to transfer Roy Schepens to Washington, D.C., after a replacement was found. Schepens announced his retirement in February, rather than accept the transfer. DOE also has openings for managers to lead its other two offices in Richland, the Richland Operations Office and the Pacific Northwest Site Office, which oversees the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Five candidates for manager of the Office of River Protection were considered but none was offered the job. Instead, DOE again has posted the position to seek more applicants and applicants with additional experience and qualifications. The new announcement is less focused on design and construction of complex projects than the first announcement, asking for more operational experience. DOE hired a search firm initially, but is not using it now to find candidates. DOE will accept applications until July 27, then a staffing panel will rate and rank candidates for further consideration. The job is advertised with a salary range of $111,676 to $154,600. Schepens was the third manager to hold the job since the Office of River Protection was formed in 1999 to empty tanks of underground radioactive waste and treat the waste. He held the job for five years, longer than two predecessors who clashed with DOE headquarters over how the contract for Hanford's massive vitrification plant should be set up and what the project should cost. Schepens saw construction started on Hanford's massive vitrification plant after years of delays and false starts, but his transfer was announced after the cost of the project rose to $12.3 billion and its opening was delayed up to eight years. DOE also continues to take applications for the other two jobs, both with the same salary range as the Office of River Protection post. The position of manager of the Richland Operations Office, which oversees Hanford work other than the tank farms and tank waste treatment, will be vacant when Keith Klein retires May 31. Applications are being accepted until May 4. The manager for the Pacific Northwest Site Office, Paul Kruger, retired in September. DOE is accepting applications for that job until May 18. 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 48 Tri-City Herald: Settling lawsuit right move for DOE Opinions Published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 Any lawsuit against the Department of Energy over Hanford cleanup -- justified or not -- is a diversion from the mission. So whenever negotiation and compromise lead away from a costly trial, it's a win for cleanup. DOE deserves credit for its recent decision to give in to demands from two states and three tribes for an assessment of damages from past Hanford activities. Oregon, Washington and Northwest Indians want the assessment done right away. DOE preferred to wait until cleanup is further along. The department had long insisted that it doesn't make sense to complete a review while efforts continue to reduce the environmental harm from 50 years of plutonium production. It's not a bad argument, and it even might have prevailed. But to what end? Win or lose, resolving the dispute in court would have been more expensive and added to the distrust between DOE, the states and tribes. Hanford leadership is in transition. Keith Klein, manager of the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, is the next top official scheduled for departure. This move toward reconciliation leaves a solid foundation for future site managers. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 49 Hanford News: Panel: Case yet to be made for new nuclear warhead This story was published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has yet to make the case for building a new generation of replacement warheads and "the role of nuclear weapons" in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, a panel of nuclear weapons experts said Tuesday. Development of the new warhead, the first in two decades, could have "international impacts" if critics view it as a new weapon rather than a replacement for the current aging stockpile, said the scientists, including three former directors of the government's nuclear weapons research laboratories. Some countries could see the warhead "as contrary to both the spirit and letter" of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty "unless explicit and credible efforts to counter such assertions are made," said the panel, which was convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to study the warhead plan. The scientists also said in a report that it is impossible to estimate the cost of warhead modernization plan, or assure that Energy Department claims of cost savings will ever be achieved. Proponents of the program may be "overselling" the eventual benefits, the report said. The administration argues the new warhead is needed because of concerns about maintenance and future reliability of the existing warheads in an era of no underground nuclear testing. It would be designed to be more robust, more easily maintained and include improved safeguards to prevent potential use by terrorists, its proponents maintain. They also said it may allow future reduction of the number of warheads needed in reserve. Reaction in Congress to the administration's proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW, has ranged from skepticism to sharp opposition in recent weeks. The administration is asking for $89 million to proceed with a design plan and draw up a detailed cost estimate over the next year. Democrats and Republicans on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons activity have questioned the need for the warhead, its impact on nuclear proliferation, and whether to proceed at a time when the Energy Department also is undertaking a broad consolidation of its nuclear weapons activities. Last week, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees nuclear weapons programs and a strong supporter of the RRW program, complained that the White House, State Department and Pentagon must "take a more active role" to sell the modernization and "answer critics who says the RRW will lead to an arms race." The panel of scientists said the Bush administration has failed to "clearly lay out the role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 world that makes the case for and define future stockpile needs that argue the case for the RRW," said the report. Without such an assessment, the report said, it will be difficult to attain broad bipartisan support for the new warhead program to be undertaken over several decades, or to counter critics' claims that it sends the wrong signal to other countries seeking nuclear weapons. The private panel was chaired by Bruce Tarter, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's members included two other former directors of the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos weapons labs, senior weapons scientists, former Energy Department officials and university experts. The Energy Department last month announced that weapons engineers at Lawrence Livermore in California would develop a design for the new warhead and detailed cost estimates. An interagency nuclear weapons council gave the go-ahead in December to proceed with planning for a new warhead to replace the current warhead on the submarine-based Trident missiles. Replacements for other warheads in the nuclear stockpile would be developed later. Thomas D'Agostino, head of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, told a congressional panel last month that the new warhead would reduce nuclear proliferation concerns because it would further reduce the total number of warheads kept in reserve and not require underground tests. Under a treaty with Russia, the United States has agreed to reduce the number of deployed warheads in active status to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. Another roughly 4,000 warheads are believed to be in reserved, although the exact number is classified. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Hanford News: PNNL boosts safety system with cameras This story was published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 By Pratik Joshi, Herald staff writer About two weeks before a gunman went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, security staff at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland tested their new campus public safety system. With live images from a network of 83 wireless cameras, crews were able to dispatch emergency response teams to precise locations on PNNL's campus during a mock roof cave-in drill, said Cameron Andersen, PNNL's safeguards and security division director. The outdoor cameras helped provide a quick response. Now, Andersen wants to enhance the system to get the word out quickly about emergencies on the two-square-mile campus. The goal is to integrate phone dialing, e-mailing and text messaging with the system to keep employees and visitors informed about emergency situations, said Jeff J. Heilman, senior security specialist at the lab. The integrated communication system may be in place by the end of the year. PNNL's cameras and emergency call stations are part of the campuswide outdoor wireless mesh network, which helps secure the campus without being obtrusive. Mesh technology uses radio signals to connect wireless cameras on electric poles with a distant wired network. The radio signals on campus are encrypted, said Andersen, adding it's the first large-scale use of the potentially hacker-proof Cisco Aironet 1500 system. "We did the design, and they provided the mesh hardware," Heilman said. The $2.3 million system became functional in October. It breaks the "gun, guards and gates kind of scenario" and helps maintain the open, welcoming feel of the campus, Heilman said. The strategically placed wireless cameras, which can be remotely controlled to zoom in and pan sideways, help watch over the entire campus. The wireless mesh technology reliably transfers data and video under almost any condition, Heilman said. Anytime someone uses one of the 14 emergency call stations, one of the pole-mounted cameras automatically zooms in on the person to give operations center staff a better view of the situation, he said. PNNL's emergency responder crews are trained to provide first aid, said Bryan Avery, security specialist. They also can inform law enforcement agencies, if needed. The system is monitored 24/7, he said. Andersen said at some point, PNNL's safety system may be expanded to provide police and fire personnel limited access to certain types of data. For example, firefighters may need to know about the types of chemicals in a building in case there's a fire on the campus, he said. copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Hanford News: Former military sites remain environmental time bombs This story was published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 By Russell Carollo, Sacramento Bee From California to Washington, D.C., time bombs lurk beneath the surface - poised to contaminate wells, pollute waterways, jeopardize property values and endanger human lives. More than 1,000 confirmed and suspected military sites, the largest number in the country, are spread across California. Many were abandoned decades ago but may still be contaminated with toxic chemicals, bombs and other munitions or even radioactive waste, a six-month examination by the Sacramento Bee found. With so many sites, encounters with military debris and even munitions are becoming commonplace. "I'm not looking for the stuff," said Yolo County (Calif.) farmer Duane Chamberlain, whose workers have found military debris about a half-dozen times during the past 15 years while plowing fields. The farm is next to the Yolo County Airport, and both sit atop a former World War II landing strip for B-25 bombers. Under current funding, it could take more than 300 years to clean up all the former U.S. military sites. That cleanup could take even longer as the military continues to battle budget problems aggravated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bee, using hundreds of thousands of military records contained in seven databases obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act, found that the majority of California's sites are potentially the most dangerous because they predated strong environmental laws and stringent record-keeping requirements. The Army Corps of Engineers' Formerly Used Defense Sites database of military sites closed before 1988 identifies 1,094 sites in California, nearly 400 more than the state with the next-largest number, Florida. San Diego, with 53 sites, is tied with Washington, D.C. as the U.S. cities with the third-most sites, following Honolulu and Seattle. And, in many cases, no one is really sure how many sites need environmental cleanup. The Army, for example, found no record that a site near Del Monte Beach in Monterey Bay, Calif., was ever owned, leased or even used by the military. But about 10 years ago, under 70 feet of water, scuba divers found more than a hundred .50-caliber cartridges and other hazardous ordnance and explosive waste. "People tended to just look the other way when old munitions or fuel was just dumped wherever they felt like it," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst and former head of the securities-studies program at Georgetown University. Cleanup of the military's former munitions ranges alone is potentially the largest environmental project in history, with 2,307 suspected munitions sites in the United States and territories. In addition, half of all U.S. sites contaminated with perchlorate, a major component of rocket fuel, are in California and Texas. America built the bulk of its military sites when fighting World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War was more important than keeping records on the waste those efforts generated. The result is that investigators looking for toxic waste and private contractors who want to build at former sites must try to fill large information gaps. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that military records on radioactively contaminated sites were so incomplete that it couldn't identify all of them. In 1992, the GAO found the military had identified 271 sites; months later it amended the number to 420. The Defense Science Board Task Force reported that unexploded military munitions cover about 1,400 sites and 10 million acres, but much of what is buried is undocumented. "Records and archives have been lost, and some munitions tests were never documented," the board wrote in a 2003 report. "(Military) experts rarely could give a specific numerical answer to any question involving these sites." "The fact that they have few answers is not totally their fault; they have inherited a messy, ill-defined situation." Environmental surprises related to former and current U.S. military bases have become commonplace across the United States and throughout the world. In 1999, workers expanding a parking lot for a San Diego hotel came across 200 3-1/2-inch practice rockets. Bob Dempsey, a civil engineer who has conducted hundreds of environmental investigations at former military sites for the Army Corps of Engineers, said he found environmental hazards at a number of sites that were supposed to be safe. "I've probably found issues at 10 to 15 percent of them," he said. The Department of Defense found that about 4,000 of the more than 9,000 sites in the United States and territories closed before 1988 did not have environmental hazards requiring further cleanup by the military. But in 2002, the GAO found the corps did "not have a sound basis" for declaring 1,468 of the sites safe. Cleanup of just munitions - considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be potentially the largest environmental cleanup in American history - could take between 75 and 330 years, a 2003 GAO report found. That same year, the Defense Science Board found that munitions cleanup was underfunded at $200 million annually, given that there are 10 million acres involved and that the cost of digging up and disposing of a single piece of ordnance can range from $2,500 to $16,000. copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 Hanford News: DOE starts over for river protection job This story was published Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is starting over with its search for a manager for the Hanford Office of River Protection. DOE has been looking for a manager since it announced plans in September to transfer Roy Schepens to Washington, D.C., after a replacement was found. Schepens announced his retirement in February, rather than accept the transfer. DOE also has openings for managers to lead its other two offices in Richland, the Richland Operations Office and the Pacific Northwest Site Office, which oversees the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Five candidates for manager of the Office of River Protection were considered but none was offered the job. Instead, DOE again has posted the position to seek more applicants and applicants with additional experience and qualifications. The new announcement is less focused on design and construction of complex projects than the first announcement, asking for more operational experience. DOE hired a search firm initially, but is not using it now to find candidates. DOE will accept applications until July 27, then a staffing panel will rate and rank candidates for further consideration. The job is advertised with a salary range of $111,676 to $154,600. Schepens was the third manager to hold the job since the Office of River Protection was formed in 1999 to empty tanks of underground radioactive waste and treat the waste. He held the job for five years, longer than two predecessors who clashed with DOE headquarters over how the contract for Hanford's massive vitrification plant should be set up and what the project should cost. Schepens saw construction started on Hanford's massive vitrification plant after years of delays and false starts, but his transfer was announced after the cost of the project rose to $12.3 billion and its opening was delayed up to eight years. DOE also continues to take applications for the other two jobs, both with the same salary range as the Office of River Protection post. The position of manager of the Richland Operations Office, which oversees Hanford work other than the tank farms and tank waste treatment, will be vacant when Keith Klein retires May 31. Applications are being accepted until May 4. The manager for the Pacific Northwest Site Office, Paul Kruger, retired in September. DOE is accepting applications for that job until May 18. copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 UPI: NNSA wins support for Pantex reform plan United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing Published: April 24, 2007 at 2:33 PM WASHINGTON April 24 (UPI) -- A study from the American Association for the Advancement of Science has given a boost to plans to dismantle old U.S. nuclear weapons. Thomas D'Agostino, acting head of the National Nuclear Safety Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, said in a statement Tuesday that the AAAS report supported "NNSA's efforts to modernize and transform the aging nuclear weapons complex, known as Complex 2030." "Several of the AAAS report's recommendations reaffirm our ongoing plans to study the RRW concept and move forward with our modernization and transformation efforts, which will lead to smaller, more efficient and more secure nuclear weapons facilities," D'Agostino said. The AAAS report advises changes at the Pantex Plant "to accommodate the weapons throughput necessary for a reasonable range of stockpile options and development of a plutonium strategy that can produce pits in reasonable quantities on a timely basis." The NNSA said Tuesday it was "already implementing both of these recommendations with demonstrated progress." "NNSA's 'Pantex Throughput Improvement Plan' started last year and has substantially increased its capacity for warhead assembly and disassembly operations. This plan will lead to a 50 percent increase this year in the dismantlement of Cold War-era nuclear warheads," the agency said. "Moreover, this year NNSA will deliver the first production-certified plutonium pit to the stockpile in nearly two decades." "Regarding the report's policy recommendations, the administration will be looking closely at them in connection with the president's desire for the smallest nuclear weapons stockpile consistent with our nation's security," the NNSA said. President George W. Bush has consistently favored a policy of reducing the size of the old U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and of replacing aging nuclear warheads with newer, more efficient and safer ones. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 NewsChannel6: D.O.E. To Allow Universities and Others to Conduct Research at Nuclear Reactor Reporter: Andrew Del Greco The U.S. Department of Energy has designated the I.N.L.'s advanced test reactor as a national scientific user facility. That means more groups will use the site for research. Dr. Ralph Bennett, Idaho National Laboratory: "The reactor is a vital, still ongoing, valuable resource for doing nuclear energy experiments. The I.N.L says the nuclear test reactor has been an important tool for the government for more than 40 years. Bennett: "We've created government propulsion systems for the navy and commercial power reactors for electricity." The Department of Energy today designated the reactor as a national scientific user facility, meaning the nuclear industry, as well as universities, will be able to conduct research there. Bennett: "The advanced test reactor is a special kind of reactor that has the ability to take on a number of experiments and irradiate them for the purpose of finding out how they behave over their life under very harsh or extreme conditions." Dr. Ralph Bennett of the I.N.L.'s Science and Technology Strategic Planning says before now, it was hard for universities to gain access into the reactor. Bennett: "It has typically been tough to get into for university researchers, difficult to come up with the money involved in major experiments involved in nuclear energy." He believes the accessibility of the test reactor to universities will have a big impact on research and development. Bennett: "It's a very exciting prospect for universities because with this designation, our plans for our research program that's dedicated to a peer review of best ideas from the university community in return for having experiments paid for and performed in the reactor, so it really amplifies the ability to do research in a big way." All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and kpvi. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 KNDO/KNDU: CH2M Hill Installing "Umbrella" Over T-Farm Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | RICHLAND, Wash.- Department of Energy contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group is taking an interesting step to stop the further spread of radioactive tank waste toward the river. The plan is to cover a part of the T-farm with the same water proof technology sprayed in truck beds. Tank T-106 is believed to have leaked more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive waste into the soil, and everytime it rains, rainwater pushes that contamination closer to the groundwater, and closer to the river. Now, DOE will lay felt the size of a football field down and spray it with something similar to Rhinoliner used in trucks, to waterproof it in the hopes that water won't be able to get to those leaks anymore. "We'll spray that over the top of where the leak was, and that'll prevent the rainfall just like an umbrella would work, from getting onto that, the material that's below the tanks," said John Kristofzski, who runs the project for CH2M Hill. They are just testing the process, but if it works there, they're considering doing it in the area of major leaks. T-Farm is the oldest tank farm on the site. It's believed to have leaked the most. Gas near record high AAA say the average price of gas in Washington is a near record of $3.15 per gallon. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************